DETAILED ACTION
Summary
Claims 1-14, and 27-32 are pending in the application. Claims 3, 5-8, 11-13, 30, and 32 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b). Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 USC 112(d). Claims 1, 9-14, 27, and 32 are rejected 35 USC 101. Claims 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(1). Claims 2-5, 9-10, 14, and 27-32 are rejected under 35 USC 103.
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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0070] recites “or an deep learning”. It should recite “or a deep learning”.
[0070] recites “a region-based active contour model o”. It should recite “a region-based active contour model”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 5, 8-10, 28, and 30-31 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “a contour of an ilium region corresponding to a hip joint” in line 1-2. It should recite “the contour of the ilium region corresponding to the hip joint”.
Claim 5 recites “a preset screening manner” in lines 1-2. It should recite “the preset screening manner”.
Claim 8 recite “the count” in line 1. It should recite “a count”.
Claim 9 recites “an image of the hip joint” in line 1. It should recite “the image of the hip joint”.
Claim 10 recites “an angle of the hip joint” in line 1. It should recite “the angle of the hip joint”.
Claim 28 recites “an image of an ilium region” in lines 1-2. It should recite “the image of the ilium region”.
Claim 30 recites “a preset screening manner” in line 2. It should recite “the preset screening manner”.
Claim 31 recites “the ultrasound image” in line 7. It should recite “the original ultrasound image”.
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 3, 5-8, 11-13, 30, and 32 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites “a filtering manner” in line 1. It is not clear if this is referring to the filtering step previously set forth, or if this is referring to a different filtering. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the former interpretation will be used.
Claim 3 recites “a thresholding segmentation manner” in line 2. It is not clear if this is referring to the thresholding segmentation step previously set forth, or if this is referring to a different thresholding segmentation. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the former interpretation will be used.
Claim 5 recites “at least one of screening conditions in three dimensions of area screening, centroid screening, and length screening” in lines 5-6. It is not clear if “three dimensions” is modifying “area screening”, “centroid screening”, and “length screening”, or if “three dimensions” is only modifying area screening” if “three dimensions” is modifying none of the screenings. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the latter definition will be used.
Claim 5 recites “three dimensions of area screening”. It is not clear what “three dimensions” is referring too, or how an area (a two-dimensional object) could be screened in “three dimensions”. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as if the area screening is considered one dimension, the length screening another dimension, and the centroid screening the third dimension.
Claim 6 recites “wherein a count of one or more candidate connected components is less than 1”. It is not clear how, if there are one or more candidate connected components, there could also be less than one candidate connected components. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as if there are zero candidate connected components (contrary to the plain language of the claim).
Claim 6 recites “one or more candidate connected components” in line 5. It is not clear if this is referring to the candidate connected components previously set forth, or if this is setting forth new candidate connected components. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the latter definition will be used.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the candidate connected component" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as referring to a respective candidate connected component.
Claim 11 recites “a centroid of an ilium” in line 5. It is not clear if this is referring to the centroid of the ilium previously set forth, or if this it setting forth a new centroid and/or ilium. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the former definition will be used.
Claim 30 recites “at least one of screening conditions in three dimensions of area screening, centroid screening, and length screening” in lines 5-6. It is not clear if “three dimensions” is modifying “area screening”, “centroid screening”, and “length screening”, if “three dimensions” is only modifying “area screening”, or if “three dimensions” is modifying none of the screenings. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the latter definition will be used.
Claim 30 recites “three dimensions of area screening”. It is not clear what “three dimensions” is referring too, or how an area (a two-dimensional object) could be screened in “three dimensions”. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as if the area screening is considered one dimension, the length screening another dimension, and the centroid screening the third dimension.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "the angle of the hip joint" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as reciting “an angle of the hip joint”.
All claims dependent from the above claims rejected under 35 USC 112(b) are also rejected, as the limitations of the dependent claims fail to cure the deficiencies identified above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 6-7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 6 recites “wherein a count of one or more candidate connected components is less than 1”. This is failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends, as claim 5 requires there are one or more candidate connected components”.
All claims dependent from the above claims rejected under 35 USC 112(d) are also rejected, as the limitations of the dependent claims fail to cure the deficiencies identified above.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1, 9-14, 27, and 32 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a mental process. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations are extra-solution activities. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are extra-solution activities.
Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The steps of “extract a contour”, “obtain a position of a centroid”, “obtain an image”, and “determine an angle of the hip joint” are all limitations that could reasonably be performed in the human mind. A user, looking at an ultrasound image, could “extract a contour” of the ilium region by thinking about where the ilium region is, and “obtain a position of a centroid” by determining, by looking at the image, where the centroid is located. The user could “obtain an image of the hip joint” by determining, using their mind, where the hip joint is in the ultrasound image, and further determined the angle of the hip joint while looking at the ultrasound image. The claim recites an abstract idea.
The claim does not recite any additional limitations which, when viewed alone or as an ordered combination, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The recitation of “a processor” to perform the process amounts to no more than a mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a generic computer system. The step of obtaining an ultrasound image of a subject is directed to an insignificant, pre-solution activity of gathering data, and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, the use of an “ultrasound image” rather than just a “image” is no more than an indication of a field of use or technological environment to apply the judicial exception, and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim has no limitations which, when viewed alone or as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional limitations are just mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a generic computer system, an insignificant pre-solution activities of gathering data, and field of use limitations. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The step of “obtaining an image of the ilium region” is directed to a mental process. A user, looking at the image, can obtain an image of the ilium region by only looking at areas around the centroid region using only their mind. The step of “obtaining the image of the hip joint… using a preset active contour model” is directed to an abstract idea of a mathematical concept. As detailed in [0105] of the specification, the active contour model encompasses at least a mathematical formula by the broadest reasonable interpretation. Claim 9 recites an abstract idea. Claim 9 does not recite any other limitations which either integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 recites an abstract idea with significantly more. The steps of “determining a crest point”, “determining a bone apex line”, “determining a cartilage apex line”, and “determining the angle of the hip joint” are limitations which can reasonably be performed in the human mind. A user can, looking at the image date, determine the points and lines using only their mind (i.e. they can recognize a point as the crest point, determine between which points a cartilage apex line exists, etc.). The claim recites an abstract idea. The claim does not recite any other limitations which either integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The steps of “segmenting the image”, “determining an upper borderline”, “extracting points”, “obtaining the slope of the line”, and “determining the crest point” are limitations which can reasonably be performed in the human mind. A user can, looking at the image date, segment the data by dividing it in two in their mind. The user can then determine (i.e. thing about) which in the images the lines are and what the slope of the line is using only their mind, and then determine (think about) where the crest point is in the image based on the slope. The claim recites an abstract idea. The claim does not recite any other limitations which either integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The step of “designating a point… as the end point” is a step which can reasonably be performed in the human mind. A user, looking at the set of points, can designate (i.e. think about) a point as an endpoint. The claim recites an abstract idea. The claim does not recite any other limitations which either integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 13 recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The steps of “segmenting an acetabular labrum region” and “designating a centroid of the acetabular labrum region” are limitations which can reasonably be performed in the human mind. A user can, looking at the image, segmenting an acetabular labrum region by thinking about which region is the acetabular labrum region and designating a centroid of the acetabular labrum region by thinking about what area in the region is the centroid. The claim recites an abstract idea. The claim does not recite any other limitations which either integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 14 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The steps of “extract a contour”, “obtain a position of a centroid”, “obtain an image”, and “determine an angle of the hip joint” are all limitations that could reasonably be performed in the human mind. A user, looking at an ultrasound image, could “extract a contour” of the ilium region by thinking about where the ilium region is, and “obtain a position of a centroid” by determining, by looking at the image, where the centroid is located. The user could “obtain an image of the hip joint” by determining, using their mind, where the hip joint is in the ultrasound image, and further determined the angle of the hip joint while looking at the ultrasound image. The claim recites an abstract idea.
The claim does not recite any additional limitations which, when viewed alone or as an ordered combination, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The step of obtaining an ultrasound image of a subject is directed to an insignificant, pre-solution activity of gathering data, and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, the use of an “ultrasound image” rather than just a “image” is no more than an indication of a field of use or technological environment to apply the judicial exception, and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim has no limitations which, when viewed alone or as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional limitations are an insignificant pre-solution activities of gathering data, and field of use limitations. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 27 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The steps of “extracting an image”, “obtaining a type of the hip joint to be detected” are all limitations that could reasonably be performed in the human mind. A user, looking at an ultrasound image, could “extract an image” of the ilium region by thinking about where the ilium region is, and “obtain a type of the hip joint” by thinking about what kind of hip joint the hip is based on the image. The step of “inputting the image of the ilium region into a preset active contour model” is directed to an abstract idea of a mathematical concept. As detailed in [0105] of the specification, the active contour model encompasses at least a mathematical formula by the broadest reasonable interpretation. The claim recites an abstract idea.
The claim does not recite any additional limitations which, when viewed along or as an ordered combination, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The step of obtaining an ultrasound image of a subject is directed to an insignificant, pre-solution activity of gathering data, and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, the use of an “ultrasound image” rather than just a “image” is no more than an indication of a field of use or technological environment to apply the judicial exception, and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical applicant. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim has no limitations which, when viewed alone or as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional limitations are just mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a generic computer system, an insignificant pre-solution activities of gathering data, and field of use limitations. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 32 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The step of “obtaining the image of the hip joint… using a preset active contour model” is directed to an abstract idea of a mathematical concept. As detailed in [0105] of the specification, the active contour model encompasses at least a mathematical formula by the broadest reasonable interpretation. The steps of “determining a crest point”, “determining a bone apex line”, “determining a cartilage apex line”, and “determining the angle of the hip joint” are limitations which can reasonably be performed in the human mind. A user can, looking at the image date, determine the points and lines using only their mind (i.e. they can recognize a point as the crest point, determine between which points a cartilage apex line exists, etc.). The step of determining the type of hip joint can reasonably by performed in the human mind, as a user can look at the data, and determine (i.e. think about) the type of hip joint based on the angle and a classification standard. The claim recites an abstract idea. The claim does not recite any other limitations which either integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sezer et al. (Sezer, Hasan Basri, and Aysun Sezer. "Automatic segmentation and classification of neonatal hips according to Graf’s sonographic method: A computer-aided diagnosis system." Applied Soft Computing 82 (2019): 105516.)
Regarding Claim 1, Sezer discloses a system for detecting an angle of a hip joint (Abstract), the system comprising a processor (Pg. 4, Col 1, ¶4) (the system runs on software running on a computer, which indicates that it is being performed on a processor), wherein the processor is configured to:
obtain an ultrasound image of a subject to be detected (Pg. 4, Fig. 1, Ultrasound Image) (Pg. 3-4, Col 2-1, ¶4-1)+ (Pg. 6, Col 1, ¶1);
extract a contour of an ilium region corresponding to a hip joint of the subject to be detected from the ultrasound image (Pg. 4, Fig. 1, Segmentation of iliac bone) (Pg. 6, Col 1, ¶2-3);
obtain a position of a centroid of the ilium region in the contour of the ilium region (Pg. 6, Col 1, ¶3-4);
obtain an image of the hip joint based on the position of the centroid (Pg. 6, Col 1, ¶4) (image patch); and
determine an angle of the hip joint of the subject to be detected based on the image of the hip joint (Pg. 6, Col 2, ¶ 1).
Regarding Claim 14, Sezer discloses a system for detecting an angle of a hip joint (Abstract), the method comprising:
obtaining an ultrasound image of a subject to be detected (Pg. 4, Fig. 1, Ultrasound Image) (Pg. 3-4, Col 2-1, ¶4-1)+ (Pg. 6, Col 1, ¶1);
extracting a contour of an ilium region corresponding to a hip joint of the subject to be detected from the ultrasound image (Pg. 4, Fig. 1, Segmentation of iliac bone) (Pg. 6, Col 1, ¶2-3);
obtaining a position of a centroid of the ilium region in the contour of the ilium region (Pg. 6, Col 1, ¶3-4);
obtaining an image of the hip joint based on the position of the centroid (Pg. 6, Col 1, ¶4) (image patch); and
determining an angle of the hip joint of the subject to be detected based on the image of the hip joint (Pg. 6, Col 2, ¶ 1).
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.
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.
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 2, and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sezer in view of Song et al. (CN 108537838 A).
Regarding Claim 2, Sezer teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Sezer further teaches wherein the extracting a contour of an ilium region corresponding to a hip joint of the subject to be detected from the ultrasound image (Pg. 4, Fig. 1, Segmentation of iliac bone) (Pg. 6, Col 1, ¶2-3) includes: obtaining a binary image including a plurality of contour regions (Pg. 6, Col 1, ¶ 3) and determining the contour of the ilium region based on the binary image (Pg. 6, Col 1, 3).
Sezer fails to explicitly teach filtering the ultrasound image to obtain a filtered ultrasound image, or obtaining the binary image by performing thresholding segmentation on the filtered ultrasound image.
Song teaches a system for detecting the joint (Abstract). This system filters an ultrasound image before obtaining a binary image [0009]. This system obtains the binary image by performing threshold segmentation on the filtered image [0011].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Sezer to filter the ultrasound image and perform threshold segmentation, as taught by Song, because this improves efficiency and accuracy of bony acetabular angle detection, as recognized by Song [0008].
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of references teaches the invention as claimed. Sezer further teaches wherein the determining the contour of the ilium region based on the binary image (Pg. 6, Col 1, 3) includes: determining the contour of the ilium region by processing the binary image using a preset screening manner (Pg. 6, Col 1-2, ¶3 & 5-1).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Sezer further teaches wherein the processing the binary image using a preset screening manner (Pg. 6, Col 1-2, ¶5-1) includes: obtaining one or more candidate connected components from the binary image through a preset screening strategy (Pg. 6, Col 1, ¶ 3) (the “connected objects”), wherein the preset screening strategy includes using at least one of screening conditions in three dimensions of area screening, centroid screening, and length screening (Pg. 6, Col 1, ¶ 3) (the shape features of area (i.e. area screening), centroid (i.e. centroid screening), and major/minor lengths of the ellipses (i.e. length screening)); and determining the contour of the ilium region based on the one or more candidate connected components (Pg. 6, Col 1, ¶ 3).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sezer in view of Song as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (U.S PGPub 2020/0005463 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination is silent regarding a filtering manner includes median filtering, and a thresholding segmentation manner includes maximum entropy thresholding segmentation.
Wu teaches a method for segmenting an image (Abstract). This system performs median filtering to remove noise [0102], and then segments the image using a maximum entropy technique [0103].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the method of filtering and segmentation of the combination with a median filtering and maximum entropy technique, as taught by Wu, as the substitution for one known method of filtering and binarization with another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill would have been able to carry out such a substitution, and the results of using median filtering and a maximum entropy technique are reasonably predictable.
Claims 9 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sezer in view of Çevik et al. (Çevik, Kerim Kürşat, and Hasan Erdinç Koçer. "Active Contour Based Developmental Hip Dysplasia Diagnosis with Graf Method." International Journal of Applied Mathematics Electronics and Computers Special Issue-1 (2016): 230-235.).
Regarding Claim 9, Sezer teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Sezer further teaches wherein the obtaining an image of the hip joint based on the position of the centroid Pg. 6, Col 1, ¶4) (image patch) includes: obtaining an image of the ilium region by expanding in accordance with a preset size based on the position of the centroid of the ilium region in the contour of the ilium region (Pg. 6, Col 1, ¶ 3).
Sezer fails to explicitly teach wherein the preset size correlates with a size of the ultrasound image. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the preset size correlate with the size of the ultrasound image through routine experimentation. Sezer teaches that the image patch shows the region of interest (Fig. 4(e)). One of ordinary skill would recognize that, if the image is larger, the preset size would also need to be larger in order to capture the entirety of the region of interest (and thus correlated with the size of the image) through routine optimization of the preset size, as if the image is larger and the size does not increase, the system would no longer be capable of capturing the entirety of the region of interest.
The combination fails to explicitly teach obtaining the image of the hip joint by processing the image of the ilium region using a preset active contour model.
Çevik teaches an active contour method for the hip (Abstract). This obtains the image of the hip joint by using a preset active contour model (Pg. 232, Implementation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined system to obtain the image of the hip joint by using a preset active contour model, as taught by Çevik, because this provides a system for diagnosing developmental hip dysplasia with a high success rate, thereby improving the diagnostic efficacy and simplifying the job of the radiologist, as recognized by Çevik (Pg. 230, Col 2, ¶ 2)+(Pg. 232, Col 2, ¶1).
Regarding Claim 27, Sezer teaches a method for hip joint classification (Abstract), the method comprising:
obtaining an original ultrasound image of a subject to be detected (Pg. 4, Fig. 1, Ultrasound Image) (Pg. 6, Col 1, ¶1), the original ultrasound image being an ultrasound image corresponding to a hip joint of the subject to be detected (Pg. 4, Fig. 1, Ultrasound Image) (Pg. 6, Col 1, ¶1); extracting an image of an ilium region corresponding to the hip joint of the subject to be detected from the original ultrasound image (Pg. 4, Fig. 1, Segmentation of iliac bone) (Pg. 6, Col 1, ¶2-3); and obtaining a type of the hip joint of the subject to be detected (Pg. 6, Col 2, ¶ 1).
The combination fails to explicitly teach inputting the image of the ilium region into a preset active contour model for hip joint classification.
Çevik teaches an active contour method for the hip(Abstract). This inputs the image of the ilium region into a preset active contour model (Pg. 232, Implementation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined system to obtain the image of the hip joint by using a preset active contour model, as taught by Çevik, because this provides a system for diagnosing developmental hip dysplasia with a high success rate, thereby improving the diagnostic efficacy and simplifying the job of the radiologist, as recognized by Çevik (Pg. 230, Col 2, ¶ 2)+(Pg. 232, Col 2, ¶1).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sezer in view of Çevik as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Hu et al. (Hu, Xindi, et al. "Joint landmark and structure learning for automatic evaluation of developmental dysplasia of the hip." IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics 26.1 (2021): 345-358.).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Sezer further teaches wherein the determining an angle of the hip joint of the subject to be detected based on the image of the hip joint (Pg. 6, Col 2, ¶ 1)
The combination fails to explicitly teach: determining a crest point, an end point, and an acetabular labrum midpoint of the ilium region based on the image of the hip joint; determining a bone apex line by connecting the crest point and the end point; determining a cartilage apex line by connecting the crest point and the acetabular labrum midpoint; and determining the angle of the hip joint of the subject to be detected based on a slope of the bone apex line and a slope of the cartilage apex line.
Hu details an ultrasound screening method for developmental dysplasia of the hip (Abstract). This system determining a crest point (Pg. 346, 1(a), P1), an end point (Pg. 346, 1(a), P2) and an acetabular labrum midpoint of the ilium region (Pg. 346, 1(a), P3) based on the image of the hip joint (Pg. 345, Col 1, ¶ 2), determining a bone apex line by connecting the crest point and the end point (Pg. 346, Fig. 1(b), bony roof line), determining a cartilage apex line by connecting the crest point and the acetabular labrum midpoint (Pg. 346, Fig. 1(b), cartilage roof line), determining the angle of the hip joint of the subject to be detected based on a slope of the bone apex line and a slope of the cartilage apex line (Pg. 346, 1(b), α and β angles) (Pg. 345-346, Col 2-1, ¶2-1) (one of ordinary skill would recognize the angles α and β are necessarily based on the slope of the lines).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the angles of the hip joint, as taught by Hu, because this allows DDH to be diagnosed earlier, thereby increasing the success rate of treatment, as recognized by Hu (Pg. 345, Col 1, ¶ 1). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, as Sezer localizes the anatomical structures for determining angle (Pg. 6, Col 1-2, ¶ 5-1), the combination would have the system determine the points taught by Hu.
Claims 28-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sezer in view of Çevik as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Song et al. (CN 108537838 A).
Regarding Claim 28, Sezer teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Sezer further teaches wherein the extracting a contour of an ilium region corresponding to a hip joint of the subject to be detected from the original ultrasound image (Pg. 4, Fig. 1, Segmentation of iliac bone) (Pg. 6, Col 1, ¶2-3) includes: obtaining a binary image including a plurality of contour regions (Pg. 6, Col 1, ¶ 3) and determining the contour of the ilium region based on the binary image (Pg. 6, Col 1, ¶3) and determining the image of the ilium region based on the contour of the ilium region (Pg. 6, Col 1, ¶3-4) (the image patches are the image of the ilium region).
Sezer fails to explicitly teach filtering the ultrasound image to obtain a filtered original ultrasound image, or obtaining the binary image by performing thresholding segmentation on the filtered original ultrasound image.
Song teaches a system for detecting the joint (Abstract). This system filters an ultrasound image before obtaining a binary image [0009]. This system obtains the binary image by performing threshold segmentation on the filtered image [0011].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Sezer to filter the ultrasound image and perform threshold segmentation, as taught by Song, because this improves efficiency and accuracy of bony acetabular angle detection, as recognized by Song [0008].
Regarding Claim 29, the combination of references teaches the invention as claimed. Sezer further teaches wherein the determining the contour of the ilium region based on the binary image (Pg. 6, Col 1, 3) includes: determining the contour of the ilium region by processing the binary image using a preset screening manner (Pg. 6, Col 1-2, ¶3 & 5-1).
Regarding Claim 30, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Sezer further teaches wherein the processing the binary image using a preset screening manner (Pg. 6, Col 1-2, ¶5-1) includes: obtaining one or more candidate connected components from the binary image through a preset screening strategy (Pg. 6, Col 1, ¶ 3) (the “connected objects”), wherein the preset screening strategy includes using at least one of screening conditions in three dimensions of area screening, centroid screening, and length screening (Pg. 6, Col 1, ¶ 3) (the shape features of area (i.e. area screening), centroid (i.e. centroid screening), and major/minor lengths of the ellipses (i.e. length screening)); and determining the contour of the ilium region based on the one or more candidate connected components (Pg. 6, Col 1, ¶ 3).
Regarding Claim 31, Sezer teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Sezer further teaches wherein the determining the image of the ilium region based on the contour of the ilium region (Pg. 6, Col 1, ¶4) (image patch) includes: obtaining a position of a centroid of the ilium region in the contour of the ilium region (Pg. 6, Col 1, ¶ 3); obtaining the image of the ilium region by expanding in accordance with a preset size based on the position of the centroid of the ilium region in the contour of the ilium region (Pg. 6, Col 1, ¶ 3).
Sezer fails to explicitly teach wherein the preset size correlates with a size of the ultrasound image. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the preset size correlate with the size of the ultrasound image through routine experimentation. Sezer teaches that the image patch shows the region of interest (Fig. 4(e)). One of ordinary skill would recognize that, if the image is larger, the preset size would also need to be larger in order to capture the entirety of the region of interest (and thus correlated with the size of the image) through routine optimization of the preset size, as if the image is larger and the size does not increase, the system would no longer be capable of capturing the entirety of the region of interest.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sezer in view of Çevik as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Hu et al. (Hu, Xindi, et al. "Joint landmark and structure learning for automatic evaluation of developmental dysplasia of the hip." IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics 26.1 (2021): 345-358.).
Regarding Claim 32, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Sezer further teaches obtaining a type of the hip joint of the subject to be detected (Pg. 6, Col 2, ¶ 1), wherein the determining an angle of the hip joint of the subject (Pg. 6, Col 2, ¶ 1) and determining the type of the hip joint of the subject to be detected based on the angle of the hip joint (Pg. 6. Col 2, ¶ 1) and a hip joint classification standard (Pg. 8, Table 3) (Pg. 6, Col 2, ¶ 2)
Sezer fails to explicitly teach inputting the image of the ilium region into a preset active contour model for hip joint classification and obtaining the image of the hip joint by processing the image of the ilium region using a preset active contour model.
Çevik teaches an active contour method for the hip(Abstract). This system inputs the image into preset active contour model and obtains the image of the hip joint by using a preset active contour model (Pg. 232, Implementation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined system to obtain the image of the hip joint by using a preset active contour model, as taught by Çevik, because this provides a system for diagnosing developmental hip dysplasia with a high success rate, thereby improving the diagnostic efficacy and simplifying the job of the radiologist, as recognized by Çevik (Pg. 230, Col 2, ¶ 2)+(Pg. 232, Col 2, ¶1).
The combination fails to explicitly teach: determining a crest point, an end point, and an acetabular labrum midpoint of the ilium region based on the image of the hip joint; determining a bone apex line by connecting the crest point and the end point and determining a cartilage apex line by connecting the crest point and the acetabular labrum midpoint; and determining the angle of the hip joint of the subject to be detected based on a slope of the bone apex line and a slope of the cartilage apex line.
Hu details an ultrasound screening method for developmental dysplasia of the hip (Abstract). This system determining a crest point (Pg. 346, 1(a), P1), an end point (Pg. 346, 1(a), P2) and an acetabular labrum midpoint of the ilium region (Pg. 346, 1(a), P3) based on the image of the hip joint (Pg. 345, Col 1, ¶ 2), determining a bone apex line by connecting the crest point and the end point (Pg. 346, Fig. 1(b), bony roof line), determining a cartilage apex line by connecting the crest point and the acetabular labrum midpoint (Pg. 346, Fig. 1(b), cartilage roof line), determining the angle of the hip joint of the subject to be detected based on a slope of the bone apex line and a slope of the cartilage apex line (Pg. 346, 1(b), α and β angles) (Pg. 345-346, Col 2-1, ¶2-1) (one of ordinary skill would recognize the angles α and β are necessarily based on the slope of the lines).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the angles of the hip joint, as taught by Hu, because this allows DDH to be diagnosed earlier, thereby increasing the success rate of treatment, as recognized by Hu (Pg. 345, Col 1, ¶ 1). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, as Sezer localizes the anatomical structures for determining angle (Pg. 6, Col 1-2, ¶ 5-1), the combination would have the system determine the points taught by Hu.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C 112(d), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: Claim 6 recites “The system of claim 5, wherein when a count of the one or more candidate connected components is less than 1, the processor is further configured to: obtain a downgraded screening strategy by performing dimensionality reduction on the screening conditions of the preset screening strategy; and obtain one or more candidate connected components from the binary image through the downgraded screening strategy”. This, in combination with the features of the base and intervening claims, is not taught by the prior art without the benefit of improper hindsight.
While the art broadly suggest that dimensionality reduction techniques are an effective pre-processing step in computation (See Abstract and Pg. 105 of Velliangiri et al. (Velliangiri, S., and S. J. P. C. S. Alagumuthukrishnan. "A review of dimensionality reduction techniques for efficient computation." Procedia computer science 165 (2019): 104-111.)), none of the cited references suggest “obtain a downgraded screening strategy by performing dimensionality reduction on the screening conditions of the preset screening strategy”; and “obtain one or more candidate connected components from the binary image through the downgraded screening strategy” when “a count of the one or more candidate connected components is less than 1”. Therefore, claim 6 is non-obvious over the prior art and would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C 112(d), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 7 necessarily contains all the limitations of claim 6, and would be allowable for substantially the same reasons.
Claim 8 recites “wherein when the count of the one or more candidate connected components is greater than 1, the processor is further configured to: calculate, for each of the one or more candidate connected components, a discrimination score corresponding to the candidate connected component; designate a candidate connected component, among the one or more candidate connected components, with a highest discrimination score as a target connected component; and extract the contour of the ilium region from the ultrasound image based on the target connected component”. These limitations, in combination with the features of the base and intervening claims, are not taught by the prior art without the benefit of improper hindsight.
None of the cited references teach “wherein when the count of the one or more candidate connected components is greater than 1, the processor is further configured to: calculate, for each of the one or more candidate connected components, a discrimination score corresponding to the candidate connected component; designate a candidate connected component, among the one or more candidate connected components, with a highest discrimination score as a target connected component; and extract the contour of the ilium region from the ultrasound image based on the target connected component”. While Swamy et al. (U.S PGPub 2011/0196236 A1) teaches calculating a discrimination score for connected components ([0037]), the system of Swamy is not used for extracting a ilium, and it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to adapt the technique of Swamy for use in the combined system. Therefore, claim 8 is non-obvious over the prior art would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Velliangiri et al. (Velliangiri, S., and S. J. P. C. S. Alagumuthukrishnan. "A review of dimensionality reduction techniques for efficient computation." Procedia computer science 165 (2019): 104-111.) which teaches the benefits of dimensionality reduction.
Swamy et al. (U.S PGPub 2011/0196236 A1), which teaches calculating a discrimination score of connected components.
Wang et al. (CN 110613482 A1), which teaches an imaging method for the hip joint.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN D MATTSON whose telephone number is (408)918-7613. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 AM - 5 PM PST.
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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached at (571) 272-2714. 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.
/SEAN D MATTSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798