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 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)(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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1 and 7-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 11,727,086 by Tan et al. (hereinafter ‘Tan’).
In regards to claim 1, Tan teaches an image processing apparatus comprising: a processor, (See Tan Figure 26, Tan teaches a system with processing unit.)
wherein the image processing apparatus trains a machine learning model that receives input of a first two-dimensional medical image to output an organ recognition result for the first two-dimensional medical image, and (See Tan Col. 13, lines 23-57, Tan teaches an inferencing model that receives a 2D medical image and segmenting organs.)
the processor is configured to: generate a second two-dimensional medical image based on a three- dimensional medical image obtained by imaging a subject; and train the machine learning model using, as ground truth data, the generated second two-dimensional medical image and an organ recognition result corresponding to the second two-dimensional medical image based on an organ recognition result in the three- dimensional medical image. (See Tan Col. 16, lines 6-19 and Col. 17, lines 1-34, Tan teaches creating synthetic 2D images from acquired 3D images. Tan also teaches transferring annotations from 3D images to the corresponding 2D images as ground truth.)
In regards to claim 7, Tan teaches according to wherein the organ recognition result is information indicating a range of a recognized organ. (See Tan Col. 9, lines 31-64).
In regards to claim 8, Tan teaches wherein the processor is configured to: further train the machine learning model using examination information in a case in which the three-dimensional medical image is captured. (See Tan Col. 18, lines 14-39.)
In regards to claim 9, Tan teaches wherein the processor is configured to: further train the machine learning model using biological information of the subject in a case in which the three-dimensional medical image is captured. (See Tan Col. 18, lines 14-39.)
In regards to claim 10, Tan teaches wherein the machine learning model receives input of the first two-dimensional medical image and the biological information to output the organ recognition result. (See Tan Col. 18, lines 14-39.)
Claims 11 and 12 recite limitations that are similar to that of claim 1. Therefore, claims 11 and 12 are rejected similarly as claim 1.
Claims 13-15 recite limitations that are similar to that of claim 1. Therefore, claims 13-15 are rejected similarly as claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 11,727,086 by Tan et al. (hereinafter ‘Tan’) in view of “Virtual Thin Slice: 3D Conditional GAN-based Super-Resolution for CT Slice Interval” by Kudo et al. (hereinafter ‘Kudo’).
In regards to claim 2, Tan teaches wherein the three-dimensional medical image includes a tomographic image group obtained by imaging the subject. (See Tan Col. 10, lines 12-32).
However, Tan does not expressly teach the processor is configured to: generate, based on a first three-dimensional medical image, a second three- dimensional medical image having a narrower slice interval or a thinner slice thickness than the first three-dimensional medical image; and generate the second two-dimensional medical image based on the second three-dimensional medical image.
Kudo teaches the processor is configured to: generate, based on a first three-dimensional medical image, a second three- dimensional medical image having a narrower slice interval or a thinner slice thickness than the first three-dimensional medical image; and generate the second two-dimensional medical image based on the second three-dimensional medical image. (See Kudo Figure 2 and Section 3.2, Kudo teaches medical image having narrower slice interval.)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tan to include the thick-thin slice translation as taught by Kudo. The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following findings: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Tan in this manner in order to be able to use CT images stored with large slice intervals.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method 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 Tan with Kudo to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
In regards to claim 3, Tan and Kudo teach all the limitations of claim 2. Tan also teaches wherein the processor is configured to: generate the second two-dimensional medical image by projecting the second three-dimensional medical image in a direction corresponding to an imaging direction of the first two-dimensional medical image. (See Tan Col. 20, lines 28-67).
In regards to claim 4, Tan and Kudo teach all the limitations of claim 3. Tan also teaches wherein the processor is configured to: generate the second two-dimensional medical image by performing image processing of enhancing an edge based on the second three-dimensional medical image. (See Tan Col. 28, lines 48-65).
In regards to claim 5, Tan and Kudo teach all the limitations of claim 4. Tan also wherein the processor is configured to: generate a projection image by projecting the second three-dimensional medical image in the direction corresponding to the imaging direction and generate the second two-dimensional medical image by performing the image processing on the projection image. (See Tan Col. 20, lines 28-67).
In regards to claim 6, Tan and Kudo teach all the limitations of claim 4. Tan also wherein the processor is configured to: perform different image processing depending on an imaging apparatus used to capture the first three-dimensional medical image or on an organ that is a recognition target. (See Tan Col. 9, lines 31-49).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UTPAL D SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-5729. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30-5:30.
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, Vu Le can be reached at (571) 272-7332. 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.
/UTPAL D SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2668
