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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 1, “In a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium…” should read “[[In]] A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium…the instructions causing the one or more processors to perform:”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “computing device” in claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 5 and 15 are 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 5 recites “editing the partial values of the respective 2D image elements in accordance with the respective editing rules specified for the 2D image elements.”, which lacks antecedent basis. Claims 2-4 recite editing rules for editing the 2D image elements, however, claim 1, which claim 5 is dependent on, recites no such editing rules. It is unclear what “the respective editing rules” is meant to refer to in claim 5. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the scope of the claimed invention. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as editing the partial values of the respective 2D image elements in accordance with any respective editing rules specified for the 2D image elements.
Claim 15 contains limitations found analogous to that of claim 5. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for the same reason.
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 1-4, 6-14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of correlating image elements across different coordinate systems and editing information based on spatial relationships, without significantly more.
The claim recites: “A method for operating an X-ray apparatus, the method comprising: acquiring at least one two-dimensional (2D) X-ray image of an object under examination by an X-ray device of the X-ray apparatus;2D/three-dimensional (3D) registering the at least one 2D X-ray image with a 3D model by a computing device of the X-ray apparatus, wherein 2D image elements of the at least one 2D X-ray image are associated with corresponding 3D image elements that are situated at respective 3D image-element locations in the 3D model; determining a volume of interest within the 3D model; post-processing the at least one 2D X-ray image, wherein at least one of the 2D image elements is edited according to a relative location, in relation to the volume of interest, of the 3D image-element location of the 3D image element corresponding to the at least one 2D image element; and providing output data comprising the at least one 2D X-ray image.”
The limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the human mind or with basic tools like paper and pen. A person, such as a physician, can mentally correlate 2D x-ray elements with corresponding 3D anatomical locations, determine volumes of interest through mental observations, and make corresponding manual edits to the 2D representation.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. For example, the claim recites the additional elements, “acquiring at least one two-dimensional (2D) X-ray image of an object under examination by an X-ray device of the X-ray apparatus”, and “providing output data comprising the at least one 2D X-ray image.”. These additional elements can reasonably be interpreted as merely data gathering and outputting steps in conjunction with the abstract idea. For example, 2D images are acquired for the registration and editing and subsequently output; therefore, the additional element does not add a meaningful limitation to the method as it is an insignificant extra-solution activity.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial expectation. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality and are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. It is therefore a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a further
limitation of the same abstract idea identified in the analysis of claim 1. For example, the person can apply edits according to set rules, such as to elements located inside of the volume of interest. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a further
limitation of the same abstract idea identified in the analysis of claim 1. For example, the person can apply edits according to set rules, such as to elements located outside of the volume of interest. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a further
limitation of the same abstract idea identified in the analysis of claim 1. For example, the person can apply edits according to set rules, such as to elements identified as objects. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a further
limitation of the same abstract idea identified in the analysis of claim 1. For example, the person can set volumes of interest in the 3D model by determining reference object locations through mental observation. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a further
limitation of the same abstract idea identified in the analysis of claim 1. For example, the person can visually receive and mentally observe a spatial path for guiding objects in the 3D model and determine volumes of interest based on these observations. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a further
limitation of the same abstract idea identified in the analysis of claim 1. For example, the person can receive and mentally observe a workflow for the 3D model and determine volumes of interest based on these observations. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9, 10, and 11 contains limitations found analogous to that of claim 1. Therefore, claims 9, 10, and 11 are rejected for the same reason as claim 1.
Claims 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 18 contain limitations found analogous to that of claims 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8, respectively. Therefore, claims 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 18 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kronke et al. (US 20240070867 A1), (hereinafter Kronke).
Regarding claim 1, Kronke teaches a method for operating an X-ray apparatus, the method comprising:
acquiring at least one two-dimensional (2D) X-ray image of an object under examination by an X-ray device of the X-ray apparatus (Kronke, pg. 4, paragraph 0067, lines 1-8, “FIG. 1 shows a device 10 for peripheral perfusion measurement. The device 10 comprises an image data input 12, a data processor 14 and an output interface 14. The image data input 12 is configured to receive at least one perfusion angiographic 2D X-ray image of a region of interest of a subject's foot. The image data input 12 is also configured to receive a 3D foot-model comprising spatial perfusion-related parameters.”, see fig. 3, The system acquires a perfusion angiographic 2D x-ray image of a subject’s foot and a 3D foot model comprising perfusion parameters.);
2D/three-dimensional (3D) registering the at least one 2D X-ray image with a 3D model by a computing device of the X-ray apparatus, wherein 2D image elements of the at least one 2D X-ray image are associated with corresponding 3D image elements that are situated at respective 3D image-element locations in the 3D model (Kronke, pg. 4, paragraph 0067, lines 8-14, “The data processor 14 is configured to register the 3D foot-model with the foot in the at least one perfusion angiographic X-ray image. The registering comprises a pose-estimation of the foot in the 2D X-ray image. The data processor 14 is also configured to map information between the 2D image and the 3D foot-model based on the pose-estimation.”, pg. 8, paragraph 0171, lines 1-9, “In an example of the registration, various techniques are provided to register a given X-ray image (e.g. a fluoroscopy frame of an angiography) to a 3D model. Some of these methods are iterative and solve the optimization problem of finding the best pose, in which the 3D foot model being projected to the X-ray detector plane fits best to features of the given X-ray image in some given metric. These image features may comprise detected intensity patterns, contours or landmarks, for example.”, The 3D foot model is registered with the foot in the 2D x-ray image through pose estimation, establishing a spatial correspondence between the 2D image elements and 3D model elements.);
determining a volume of interest within the 3D model; post-processing the at least one 2D X-ray image, wherein at least one of the 2D image elements is edited according to a relative location, in relation to the volume of interest, of the 3D image-element location of the 3D image element corresponding to the at least one 2D image element (Kronke, pg. 4, paragraph 0067, lines 14-20, “The data processor 14 is further configured to identify image processing modification instructions based on the mapped information. The data processor 14 is also configured to modify the at least one image signal based on the image processing modification instructions. The output interface 16 is configured to provide the at least one modified image signal.”, pg. 6, paragraphs 0111-0113, “In an example, the result of the pose estimation is used in order to map information from 3D to a signal of the 2D X-ray image. The signal may be an image value. The signal may be a compensation factor or may be a defined perfusion regions. In an example, the image signal is not mapped into 3D, but the result of the pose estimation is used in order to map information from 3D into 2D. For example, the identifying of image processing modification instructions is based on the 2D signal mapped to the 3D foot-model. For example, the image processing modification instructions comprises at least one modification factor.”, pg. 6, paragraph 0121, “FIG. 3b shows a second further option of the method, providing a normalization of the perfusion signal by the effective fraction of perfused material. As indicated, the mapping comprises a ray tracing 228. The identifying of the image processing modification instruction comprises a derivation 230 of modification factor from the 3D model. The modifying comprises applying 232 the derived modification factor to the at least one signal of the 2D X-ray image. The providing the at least one modified image signal comprises reporting 234 the modified image signal in the image or providing 236 quantities derived from the at least one modified image signal.”, see Fig. 3a, After registration, perfusion regions (i.e., volumes of interest) defined in the 3D model are mapped into the 2D x-ray image by projecting these regions in 2D and adapting them to the estimated pose. The system then post-processes the 2D x-ray image by modifying the image signal based on the mapped information, including generating time-density curves and normalizing the image signal. This results in a modified 2D x-ray image that has been enhanced based on the spatial relationship between 2D image elements and a volume of interest in the registered 3D model.); and
providing output data comprising the at least one 2D X-ray image (Kronke, pg. 8, paragraph 0155, “In the providing step, the at least one X-ray image and the adapted spatial perfusion-related parameters are provided as enhanced perfusion X-ray image data.”).
Regarding claim 2, Kronke teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the post-processing of the at least one 2D X-ray image comprises:
editing, according to a first editing rule, at least one of the 2D image elements for which the corresponding 3D image element has a 3D image-element location situated inside the volume of interest (Kronke, pg. 6, paragraph 0117, “FIG. 3a shows a first further option of the method, providing a regional perfusion analysis. As indicated, the mapping comprises mapping 220 perfusion regions from the 3D foot-model into the 2D X-ray image and projecting 222 the perfusion regions in 2D. The identifying of the image processing modification instructions comprises summing up 224 a perfusion signal in each of the projected perfusion regions, wherein the perfusion regions are adapted to the estimated pose. The modifying comprises generating 226 a set of time-density curves corresponding to these adapted perfusion regions.”, see Fig. 3a, Perfusion regions (volumes of interest) are mapped from the 3D model into the 2D image. The perfusion signal in each of these projected regions is then summed. This summation is applied to the 2D image elements that have corresponding 3D image elements situated inside the projected perfusion region.).
Regarding claim 3, Kronke teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the post-processing of the at least one 2D X-ray image comprises:
editing, according to a second editing rule, at least one of the 2D image elements for which the corresponding 3D image element has a 3D image-element location situated outside the volume of interest. (Kronke, pg. 6, paragraph 0121, lines 1-3, “FIG. 3b shows a second further option of the method, providing a normalization of the perfusion signal by the effective fraction of perfused material.”, pg. 9, paragraph 0179, “This mitigates this lack of quantitative comparability between different regions or (slight) pose variations by ray tracing, which is illustrated in FIG. 6 and FIG. 7. Having estimated the camera-pose parameters as well as the model internal parameters, the 3D foot-model is articulated/deformed accordingly. For each pixel of interest in the DSA image/sequence, the corresponding ray of the X-ray source is traced and the intersection points with the foot-model outer surface are determined. Thereafter, the penetration path-length L is measured. Similarly, the total penetration path-length LB of bones intersecting this ray are calculated. The local fraction of penetrated bones is finally compensated by multiplying the extensive quantity with the factor (1-LB/L), which is position and pose dependent. In a more refined normalization, a weighting factor may be created by estimating the typical perfusion intensity of parenchyma, IP, and of bones, IB, and weighting them with the local fraction of penetrated bones and parenchyma to result in the overall weighting factor IP (1-LB/L)+IB LB/L.”, The image signal is multiplied by a modification factor, such as (1-LB/L), where LB is the path length through bone. This rule is applied to the 2D image elements to account for non-perfused materials (e.g., bone) situated outside the perfusion regions.)
Regarding claim 4, Kronke teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the post-processing of the at least one 2D X-ray image comprises:
editing, according to a third editing rule, at least one of the 2D image elements for which the corresponding 3D image element is identified as a specified object (Kronke, pgs. 9 and 10, paragraph 0184-0186, “The contribution of larger vessels to overlapping perfusion region can be properly weighted by dedicated approaches: The major vessels can be segmented in the DSA image/sequence and labelled. Using prior knowledge such as a mean vessel tree in the 3D foot-model, the detected major vessels can be matched to their 3D correspondence such that the signal of the major vessels can uniquely assigned to one of the perfusion regions only. Given the camera pose and model-internal parameters as well as a segmentation of the major vessels in the angiography, a 3D vessel tree may be deformed to best match to the segmentation. This adapted 3D vessel tree may either be used for assigning vessels in the projective plane to a certain perfusion region (see above) or for customizing the perfusion region boundaries in the 3D model such that each region is only fed by a single major vessel.”, Major vessels are segment in the 2D x-ray image and assigned to a respective perfusion region. This process edits 2D image elements corresponding to the specified object of “major vessels” to refine boundaries and properly weight their contribution to overlapping regions.).
Regarding claim 5, Kronke teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the post-processing of the at least one 2D X-ray image comprises:
determining an image point of the 2D X-ray image at which a plurality of the 2D image elements are superimposed, wherein partial values of the respective 2D image elements of the image point form a total value of the image point; and editing the partial values of the respective 2D image elements in accordance with the respective editing rules specified for the 2D image elements (Kronke, pg. 9, paragraph 0182-0183, “Having estimated the camera-pose and model-internal parameters, a given parcellation of the 3D foot-model into meaningful perfusion regions, e.g. motivated by angiosome like feeding territories of the main vessels, can be projected into the angiography. Having normalized the DSA signal according to the example above, the contrast density can then be summed up in the projected perfusion regions. Here, care is required for treating the overlap region of two neighboring perfusion regions (see FIG. 6) since the measured contrast density must be properly distributed among the neighboring perfusion regions. A way of weighting the measured contrast density consists in ray-tracing (see above) and taking the ratio of the penetration-path lengths in the tissue of the neighboring perfusion regions as a weight factor.”, pg. 11, paragraph 0232, “In a second possible sub-step of the visualization, visualization of analysis in pose-adapted perfusion regions is provided. This analysis step aims at an anatomically well-defined regional measurement of perfusion properties, which can be presented in form of a time-density curve for a given region and a visualization of deduced parameters (e.g. peak-height, peak-time). In order to connect these aggregated pieces of information to the anatomy, such a visualization can be accompanied by a 3D rendering of the articulated foot-model and its parcellation. The rendering camera can be adapted to the estimated pose, and a projection of the parcellation into the angiography may be presented in form of e.g. colored overlays. Clicking on a certain parcellation overlay on the angiography may trigger a selection of this perfusion region and a corresponding update of the time-density curve plot.”, The system may generate overlapping perfusion regions when projected them into the 2D x-ray image. The measured contrast density at these overlapping image points must be properly distributed among neighboring perfusion regions. Thus, the total value of the overlapping image points are decomposed into partial contrast density values corresponding to each superimposed region. The values can then be edited according to a specific rule, such as weighting them according to penetration paths.).
Regarding claim 6, Kronke teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining, in the 3D model, a reference object location of a specified reference object depicted in the at least one 2D X-ray image; and determining the volume of interest within the 3D model according to the reference object location of the reference object in the 3D model (Kronke, pgs. 9 and 10, paragraph 0184-0186, “The contribution of larger vessels to overlapping perfusion region can be properly weighted by dedicated approaches: The major vessels can be segmented in the DSA image/sequence and labelled. Using prior knowledge such as a mean vessel tree in the 3D foot-model, the detected major vessels can be matched to their 3D correspondence such that the signal of the major vessels can uniquely assigned to one of the perfusion regions only. Given the camera pose and model-internal parameters as well as a segmentation of the major vessels in the angiography, a 3D vessel tree may be deformed to best match to the segmentation. This adapted 3D vessel tree may either be used for assigning vessels in the projective plane to a certain perfusion region (see above) or for customizing the perfusion region boundaries in the 3D model such that each region is only fed by a single major vessel.”, Major vessels are segmented in the 2D x-ray image and matched to their corresponding location in the 3D model. The location of these major vessels in the 3D model are then used for assigning to specific perfusion regions and/or to refine boundaries of the volume of interest.)
Regarding claim 8, Kronke teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving a workflow in relation to the 3D model; and determining the volume of interest within the 3D model according to a current status of the workflow (Kronke, pg. 5, paragraphs 0079 and 0083, “The "image data input 12" relates to a supply of image data. The image data input 12 thus provides an interface for inputting image data. The image data input 12 can also be referred to as image data source, image data supply, data input, data supply unit, data input unit or data supply module. The image data input 12 can be connected to a data storage or to an imaging source like an X-ray imaging arrangement… In an example, the image data input 12 is configured to receive a sequence of perfusion angiographic X-ray images of the region of interest of the subject's body.”, The system receives the 2D x-ray image depicting a region of interest of a subject, which triggers the sequence of operations. This step corresponds to “receiving a workflow” as required by the claim, as the mapping and projection of perfusion regions are then applied to the 2D x-ray image according to the operations of the system. The “current status” being the mapping phase, during which the volume of interest (perfusion region) is determined and projected into the 2D x-ray image.).
Claim 9 corresponds to claim 1, additionally reciting an x-ray apparatus, comprising: an x-ray device; and a computing device. Kronke teaches the addition of an x-ray apparatus, comprising: an x-ray device; and a computing device (Kronke, pg. 5, paragraphs 0079, lines 6-8, and paragraph 0080, "The image data input 12 can be connected to a data storage or to an imaging source like an X-ray imaging arrangement. The "data processor 14" relates to image data processing. The data processor 14 can also be referred to as processor, processing unit or computing module.”). The remaining limitations are analogous to the limitations found in claim 1 and are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 10 corresponds to claim 1, additionally reciting a computing device comprising a processor. Kronke teaches the addition of a computing device comprising a processor (Kronke, pg. 5, paragraph 0080, “The "data processor 14" relates to image data processing. The data processor 14 can also be referred to as processor, processing unit or computing module.”). The remaining limitations are analogous to the limitations found in claim 1 and are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 11 corresponds to claim 1, additionally reciting a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that stores instructions executable by one or more processors to operate an X-ray apparatus. Kronke teaches the addition of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that stores instructions executable by one or more processors to operate an X-ray apparatus (Kronke, pg. 13, paragraph 0251, “In an example to be claimed, a computer program or program element for controlling an apparatus according to one of the examples above is provided, which program or program element, when being executed by a processing unit, is adapted to perform the method steps of one of the method examples above.”). The remaining limitations are analogous to the limitations found in claim 1 and are rejected for the same reason.
Claims 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 18, correspond to claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8, respectively, additionally reciting a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that stores instructions executable by one or more processors to operate an X-ray apparatus. Kronke teaches the addition of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that stores instructions executable by one or more processors to operate an X-ray apparatus (see analysis of claim 11). The remaining limitations are analogous to the limitations found in claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 and are rejected for the same reasons.
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.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kronke et al. (US 20240070867 A1) in view of Alzaga et al. (US 20200036910 A1), (hereinafter Alzaga).
Regarding claim 7, Kronke teaches the method of claim 1. Kronke does not teach further comprising: receiving a spatial path in relation to the 3D model for guiding a reference object through the 3D model; and determining the volume of interest within the 3D model according to a spatial course of the spatial path through the 3D model.
However, Alzaga teaches further comprising: receiving a spatial path in relation to the 3D model for guiding a reference object through the 3D model; and determining the volume of interest within the 3D model according to a spatial course of the spatial path through the 3D model (Alzaga, pg. 4, paragraph 0025, lines 1-18, “In a further embodiment, a 3D model of the optically concealed structure is generated as part of the overlay image. In a further embodiment, a travel path for a predetermined object is generated as part of the overlay image. The travel path may be, for example, a planned path along which the object is to be guided. Equally, the travel path may be a path that is acquired and tracked (e.g., a previous trajectory) of the predetermined object. The predetermined object may be an instrument or a tool, for example. However, the object may equally be a foreign body, or part of the target object itself that is to be transferred along the travel path to a predetermined destination position. The concealed structure may be part of the target object and/or the instrument or tool, for example. Because the 3D model of the structure is generated as a virtual object and used as part of the overlay image, the structure may advantageously be represented in the stereoscopic representation in a particularly precise and easily recognizable manner.”)
Kronke teaches generating 3D models including perfusion regions and 2D/3D registering the models to 2D x-ray images for perfusion measurement and visualization (Kronke, pg. 4, paragraph 0067 and pg. 8, paragraph 0171). Kronke does not teach receiving a path for guiding objects in the 3D model or determining perfusion regions according to the path. Alzaga teaches defining and outputting a travel path for which instruments are meant to be guided to reach predetermined targets corresponding to a 3D model for generating overlay images (see above). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the 2D/3D registration of Kronke to include the travel paths as taught by Alzaga (Alzaga, pg. 4, paragraph 0025, lines 1-18). The motivation for doing so would have been to provide users with enhanced guidance during procedures, thereby improving patient outcomes. Kronke teaches determining perfusion regions by considering the spatial position of various anatomical elements, such as bones and vessels (Kronke, pg. 8, paragraphs 0168 and 0171). The combination of Kronke in view of Alzaga would determine perfusion regions that are adjacent to or constrained by the path’s trajectory through the 3D model. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Kronke with Alzaga to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
Claim 17 corresponds to claim 7, additionally reciting a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that stores instructions executable by one or more processors to operate an X-ray apparatus. Kronke in view of Alzaga teaches the addition of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that stores instructions executable by one or more processors to operate an X-ray apparatus (see analysis of claim 11). The remaining limitations are analogous to the limitations found in claim 7 and are rejected for the same reason.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONNOR LEVI HANSEN whose telephone number is (703)756-5533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00 (ET).
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at (571) 272-3638. 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.
/CONNOR L HANSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2672
/SUMATI LEFKOWITZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights