DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged that application claims priority to foreign application with application number JP2024-041683 dated 03/15/2024. Copies of certified papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 have been received. Priority is acknowledged under 35 USC 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3, 6, 7, 16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto et al. (U.S. Patent No. 2025/0252704 A1), hereinafter Miyamoto, in view of Petkov (U.S. Patent No. 2023/0255692 A1), in further view of Kitano (U.S. Patent No. 2021/0383514 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Miyamoto teaches an information processing apparatus (Miyamoto, para 30: “The information processing apparatus 100 can perform image processing and analysis processing of various images obtained by using the radiation detector 30 and the camera 40”) in a radiation apparatus equipped with an optical camera (Miyamoto, see 20-40 in FIG. 1A) that acquires a radiation image by performing radiation on a subject (Miyamoto, para 39: “The radiation image obtaining unit 106 can control the radiation generating apparatus 20 and the radiation detector 30, perform the radiation imaging of the object O, and obtain the radiation image of the object O from the radiation detector 30”) and acquires an optical image of the subject (Miyamoto, para 33: “The camera 40 is an example of an optical apparatus that performs optical imaging on the object O under the control by the information processing apparatus 100 and obtain an optical image”), the information processing apparatus comprising: at least one processor (Miyamoto, para 42: “The CPU (central processing unit) 131 is an example of a processor that controls the operation of the information processing apparatus 100”), wherein the processor is configured to: specify a region of interest included in the optical image (Miyamoto, the imaging-target, para 28: “Specifically, a region of interest and object candidate information are recognized from the optical image, and the recognized region of interest and object candidate information are used to narrow down the object, which is the imaging-target of the radiation imaging, from among the plurality of object candidates in the optical image”); and a region in the fluoroscopic image corresponding to the region of interest (Miyamoto, identified object indicated in the radiation image – i.e., image 1200 showing only the right hand, para 116: “For example, in the example shown in FIG. 11, since the class number 1 (right hand) is output as the object information, the annotation unit 107 places a symbol R1201 indicating the right hand in the radiation image and outputs the annotated image 1200 as shown in FIG. 12. FIG. 12 shows an example of output by the annotation unit 107”).
Miyamoto teaches an x-ray apparatus, but fails to explicitly teach wherein fluoroscopic images are acquired by performing fluoroscopy. Additionally, while Miyamoto teaches identifying the region in the radiation image corresponding to the region of interest, Miyamoto fails to explicitly teach set an image processing condition for improving an image quality of a region in the fluoroscopic image corresponding to the region of interest; and perform image processing on the fluoroscopic image based on the image processing condition (emphasis added).
However, Petkov teaches a medical imaging system equipped with an optical camera and fluoroscopy (Petkov, para 12: “Alternatively, or in addition, the received data indicative of the anatomical structure may be received during the surgical procedure, e.g., from a camera attached to a surgical needle, from a gyroscopic sensor at a handle of a surgical device (also: surgical instrument), from ultrasound images, and/or from an external tracking system, e.g., optical tracking (which may also be denoted as reflective tracking) and/or from electromagnetic tracking. Further alternatively, or in addition, ultrasound, fluoroscopy and/or MRI may be used for intraoperative imaging of a, e.g., human, patient during the surgical procedure.”). Miyamoto teaches a radiation apparatus capable of utilizing x-rays and equipped with an optical camera. Thus, Miyamoto and Petkov each disclose medical imaging systems used for capturing both x-ray images and optical images. A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have recognized that the capturing of fluoroscopic images taught by Petkov could have been substituted for the x-ray radiation images taught in the system of Miyamoto because both serve the purpose of generating x-ray images of a subject’s anatomy. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the substitution. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the capturing of fluoroscopic images, taught by Petkov, for the capturing of x-ray radiation images, taught by Miyamoto, according to known methods to yield the predictable result of capturing images of inside the body using x-ray beams.
Additionally, Kitano teaches an image processing method where specific subject regions in an image are enhanced (Kitano, abstract: “executing image processing of enhancing contrast of the specified subject region on the first image and outputting the first image after the image processing”). Kitano teaches the following: set an image processing condition for improving an image quality of a region in a radiation image corresponding to a region of interest (Kitano, subject region, para 74: “The specification unit 93 executes processing (hereinafter, referred to as specification processing) of specifying a region (hereinafter, referred to as a subject region) in the radiographic image 45”; image processing condition is a contrast adjustment, para 80: “the image processing unit 94 performs contrast adjustment of the display image displayed on the operator monitor 21 based on solely the pixel values of the subject region 451”); and perform image processing on the radiation image based on the image processing condition (Kitano, para 80: “To avoid the above-described problem, the image processing unit 94 executes image processing of enhancing the contrast of the subject region 451…The image after the image processing is supplied to the operator monitor 21. With this, the radiographic image 45 subjected to the image processing of enhancing the contrast of the subject region 451 is displayed on the operator monitor 21.”).
Kitano’s image processing method 1) improves the image quality of a radiation image and 2) removes the requirement of the operator to perform the adjustment (Kitano, para 6: “For example, automating contrast adjustment of the radioscopic image displayed on the display is automated makes it possible to eliminate a need for the operator performing the operation for image quality adjustment”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the image processing steps, taught by Kitano, with the radiation imaging apparatus of Miyamoto in view of Petkov in order to automatically improve the quality of the captured fluoroscopic images of the subject based on the most important region in the image (see the cited portions from Kitano above).
Regarding claim 2 (dependent on claim 1), Miyamoto in view of Petkov and Kitano teaches wherein the processor is configured to: determine whether or not the optical image includes another subject region other than the region of interest (Miyamoto, left hand identified in FIG. 5, attached below, para 65: “For example, taking the optical image 300 shown in FIG. 3 as an example, the second recognizing unit 103 performs the object detection of the right hand 302 and the left hand 303, and outputs their positions as different bounding boxes 501, 502 as shown in FIG. 5”); and in a case in which it is determined that the optical image includes the other subject region, specify the region of interest included in the optical image (Miyamoto, left and right hand are identified, but the right hand is specified as the region of interest, para 74: “Therefore, the recognition result integrating unit 104 can output the object candidate information including the bounding box 501 and its class number 1 (right hand) as the object information”; para 98: “Even in this case, the information processing apparatus 100 can narrow down the object which is the imaging-target of the radiation imaging, even in a situation where a plurality of object candidates appears in the image”), set the image processing condition, and perform the image processing (Kitano’s image processing method receives a specified region of interest and performs the image processing steps on that region of interest. There is one subject region, for example 451 in FIG. 13, that is enhanced; para 74: “FIG. 13 is a diagram schematically showing the radiographic image 45. The radiographic image 45 includes a subject region 451 where an image of the patient P is formed with the irradiation of the radiation R to the radiation detector 33 through the patient P and a directly irradiated region 452 where the irradiation of the radiation R is performed directly to the radiation detector 33 without passing through the patient P.”; refer to the claim 1 rejection regarding the combination with Kitano).
PNG
media_image1.png
547
832
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 5 from Miyamoto
Regarding claim 3 (dependent on claim 2), Miyamoto in view of Petkov and Kitano teaches wherein the processor is configured to:
segment the optical image using a trained model that has been trained to segment the optical image (Miyamoto, para 69: “the second recognizing unit 103 may recognize the object candidate information by using an inferrer obtained by using training data including an optical image as input data and object candidate information in the optical image as output data. Here, as the object candidate information in the optical image, for example, a label image in which a label is given to a region including a site of the human body may be used”); and
use a result of the segmentation to determine whether or not the other subject region is included and to specify the region of interest (Miyamoto, the results of the recognizing unit are used to narrow down the imaging-target, para 98: “Even in this case, the information processing apparatus 100 can narrow down the object which is the imaging-target of the radiation imaging, even in a situation where a plurality of object candidates appears in the image”).
Regarding claim 6 (dependent on claim 1), Miyamoto in view of Petkov and Kitano teaches wherein the processor is configured to, in a case in which it is determined that the optical image includes only one subject region (Miyamoto, right hand identified in FIG. 7 attached below; para 92: “On the other hand, as a modified example, as shown in FIG. 7, the region of interest may be recognized by the first recognizing unit 102, and the recognition processing of the object candidate information by the second recognizing unit 103 may be applied only to the recognized region of interest”), specify the one subject region as the region of interest, set the image processing condition, and perform the image processing (Kitano’s image processing method receives a specified region of interest and performs the image processing steps on that region of interest. There is one subject region, for example 451 in FIG. 13, that is enhanced; para 74: “FIG. 13 is a diagram schematically showing the radiographic image 45. The radiographic image 45 includes a subject region 451 where an image of the patient P is formed with the irradiation of the radiation R to the radiation detector 33 through the patient P and a directly irradiated region 452 where the irradiation of the radiation R is performed directly to the radiation detector 33 without passing through the patient P.”; refer to the claim 1 rejection regarding the combination with Kitano).
PNG
media_image2.png
441
863
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 7 from Miyamoto
Regarding claim 7 (dependent on claim 1), Miyamoto in view of Petkov and Kitano teaches wherein the image processing condition is an image processing condition for improving a contrast of the region of interest included in the fluoroscopic image (Kitano, para 80: “the image processing unit 94 executes image processing of enhancing the contrast of the subject region 451”).
Regarding claim 16 (dependent on claim 1), Miyamoto in view of Petkov and Kitano teaches wherein the processor is configured to display, on a display, a processed fluoroscopic image on which the image processing is performed (Taught by Kitano, displaying the enhanced image on the operator monitor described in para 80).
Regarding claim 19, Miyamoto teaches where an information processing method in a fluoroscopy apparatus is performed via a computer (Miyamoto, para 45: “The information processing apparatus 100 may be configured by a computer provided with a processor and memory”). All remaining claim limitations are met and rendered obvious by Miyamoto in view of Petkov and Kitano because the method steps of claim 19 are the same as those performed by the apparatus in claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, Miyamoto teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that stores an information processing program causing a computer to execute information processing in a fluoroscopy apparatus (Miyamoto, para 135: “Embodiment(s) of the present invention can also be realized by a computer of a system or apparatus that reads out and executes computer executable instructions (e.g., one or more programs) recorded on a storage medium (which may also be referred to more fully as a ‘non-transitory computer-readable storage medium’) to perform the functions of one or more of the above-described embodiment(s)”). All remaining claim limitations are met and rendered obvious by Miyamoto in view of Petkov and Kitano because the executed steps of claim 20 are the same as those performed by the apparatus in claim 1.
Claims 4-5, 8-9, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto in view of Petkov, in further view of Kitano and Storch et al. (U.S. Patent No. 2023/0410308 A1), hereinafter Storch.
Regarding claim 4 (dependent on claim 2), Miyamoto in view of Petkov and Kitano teaches wherein the other subject region includes a part of a body region of an operator or helper of the imaging apparatus (Miyamoto, para 5-6: “For example, in the radiation imaging, in a case where an optical image is obtained by an optical imaging means which can capture the entire scene of the radiation imaging in the field of view, in addition to the object, a person other than the object, such as an operator of a radiation imaging apparatus or helper, may appear in the optical image…Therefore, in an embodiment of the present disclosure, one of the objectives is to obtain information for narrowing down an object, which is an imaging-target of radiation imaging, from a plurality of object candidates in the optical image.”), but fails to explicitly teach wherein the other subject region includes a part of a body region of a surgeon who performs a treatment on the subject (emphasis added).
However, Storch similarly teaches a method for detecting other subject regions in a medical image (Storch, abstract: “foreign object”) wherein the other subject region includes a part of a body region of a surgeon who performs a treatment on the subject (Storch, para 19: “Thus, the presented method allows detecting abnormalities in images, preferably in fluoroscopic images, more preferably in one or more fluoroscopic live videos. Such abnormalities could be e.g. hands of the surgeon…”). Miyamoto teaches wherein the body region of someone other than the subject being imaged may be captured in the images processed by their apparatus/method (para 5-6). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the detection of a surgeon in images, as taught by Storch, with the radiation imaging apparatus of Miyamoto in view of Petkov and Kitano in order to perform the image processing method during surgery (Storch, see para 19).
Storch further states that it is not uncommon for a surgeon’s hands to enter the beam path during surgery (Storch, para 2: “Furthermore, it is not uncommon that the surgeon's hands enter the beam path—intentionally or unintentionally”). As described above, Miyamoto and Storch each disclose a body region, other than the body region of the subject to be imaged, appearing in in the frame of an image (Miyamoto teaches the example in FIG. 5 where the subject’s left hand appears when the body region to be imaged is the right hand.). A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have recognized that the surgeon’s hand of Storch’s object detection could have been substituted for the left hand of the subject in Miyamoto’s object detection because both serve the purpose of identifying body regions other than that of the subject to be imaged. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the substitution. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the left hand of the subject, taught by Miyamoto, for the surgeon’s hand, taught by Storch, according to known methods to yield the predictable result of identifying in-frame body regions other than the body region of the subject to be imaged.
Regarding claim 5 (dependent on claim 3), Miyamoto in view of Petkov and Kitano teaches wherein the other subject region includes a part of a body region of an operator or helper of the imaging apparatus (Miyamoto, para 5-6: “For example, in the radiation imaging, in a case where an optical image is obtained by an optical imaging means which can capture the entire scene of the radiation imaging in the field of view, in addition to the object, a person other than the object, such as an operator of a radiation imaging apparatus or helper, may appear in the optical image…Therefore, in an embodiment of the present disclosure, one of the objectives is to obtain information for narrowing down an object, which is an imaging-target of radiation imaging, from a plurality of object candidates in the optical image.”), but fails to explicitly teach wherein the other subject region includes a part of a body region of a surgeon who performs a treatment on the subject (emphasis added).
However, Storch similarly teaches a method for detecting other subject regions in a medical image (Storch, abstract: “foreign object”) wherein the other subject region includes a part of a body region of a surgeon who performs a treatment on the subject (Storch, para 19: “Thus, the presented method allows detecting abnormalities in images, preferably in fluoroscopic images, more preferably in one or more fluoroscopic live videos. Such abnormalities could be e.g. hands of the surgeon…”). Miyamoto teaches wherein the body region of someone other than the subject being imaged may be captured in the images processed by their apparatus/method (para 5-6). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the detection of a surgeon in images, as taught by Storch, with the radiation imaging apparatus of Miyamoto in view of Petkov and Kitano in order to perform the image processing method during surgery (Storch, see para 19).
Storch further states that it is not uncommon for a surgeon’s hands to enter the beam path during surgery (Storch, para 2: “Furthermore, it is not uncommon that the surgeon's hands enter the beam path—intentionally or unintentionally”). As described above, Miyamoto and Storch each disclose a body region, other than the body region of the subject to be imaged, appearing in in the frame of an image (Miyamoto teaches the example in FIG. 5 where the subject’s left hand appears when the body region to be imaged is the right hand.). A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have recognized that the surgeon’s hand of Storch’s object detection could have been substituted for the left hand of the subject in Miyamoto’s object detection because both serve the purpose of identifying body regions other than that of the subject to be imaged. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the substitution. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the left hand of the subject, taught by Miyamoto, for the surgeon’s hand, taught by Storch, according to known methods to yield the predictable result of identifying in-frame body regions other than the body region of the subject to be imaged.
Regarding claim 8 (dependent on claim 4), Miyamoto in view of Petkov, Kitano, and Storch teaches wherein the image processing condition is an image processing condition for improving a contrast of the region of interest included in the fluoroscopic image (Kitano, para 80: “the image processing unit 94 executes image processing of enhancing the contrast of the subject region 451”).
Regarding claim 9 (dependent on claim 5), Miyamoto in view of Petkov, Kitano, and Storch teaches wherein the image processing condition is an image processing condition for improving a contrast of the region of interest included in the fluoroscopic image (Kitano, para 80: “the image processing unit 94 executes image processing of enhancing the contrast of the subject region 451”).
Regarding claim 17 (dependent on claim 4), Miyamoto in view of Petkov, Kitano, and Storch teaches wherein the processor is configured to display, on a display, a processed fluoroscopic image on which the image processing is performed (Taught by Kitano, displaying the enhanced image on the operator monitor described in para 80).
Regarding claim 18 (dependent on claim 5), Miyamoto in view of Petkov, Kitano, and Storch teaches wherein the processor is configured to display, on a display, a processed fluoroscopic image on which the image processing is performed (Taught by Kitano, displaying the enhanced image on the operator monitor described in para 80).
Claims 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto in view of Petkov, in further view of Kitano and Areste et al. (U.S. Patent No. 2012/0177178 A1), hereinafter Areste.
Regarding claim 10 (dependent on claim 1), Miyamoto in view of Petkov and Kitano fails to explicitly teach wherein the processor is configured to: set an imaging condition for improving the image quality of the region in the fluoroscopic image corresponding to the region of interest in the case of performing the fluoroscopy; and perform the fluoroscopy based on the imaging condition.
However, Areste teaches a fluoroscopy imaging system (Areste, abstract), including set an imaging condition for improving the image quality of a region in the fluoroscopic image corresponding to the region of interest in the case of performing the fluoroscopy; and perform the fluoroscopy based on the imaging condition (Areste, para 19: “As such, the system may automatically alter and/or the operator may alter the range, step size, and default value of the contrast level adjustment during the imaging procedure as desired. Such a feature may offer distinct advantages over systems in which such values are predetermined during system setup and remain fixed throughout the imaging operation. For instance, by enabling the automatic and/or manual configurability of the adjustments, embodiments of the present invention may facilitate the dynamic adjustment and optimization of the video displayed on the monitor 26 during the imaging operation.”; see also para 20; Note that 1) correctly adjusting contrast levels to optimize the video improves the quality of the captured image and 2) setting an imaging condition to improve the image quality of the entire frame also improves the image quality of a region of interest in the frame.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the imaging condition for improving the capture of a fluoroscopic image, as taught by Areste, with the fluoroscopic apparatus taught by Miyamoto in view of Petkov and Kitano in order to improve the quality of the captured images by optimizing the contrast (Areste, para 13: “In such applications, automatically altering such parameters during the fluoroscopy operation and/or enabling the radiologist to dynamically alter such parameters during the fluoroscopy operation may provide the operator with increased flexibility, thus enabling the operator to better optimize the acquired images.”).
Regarding claim 13 (dependent on claim 10), Miyamoto in view of Petkov, Kitano, and Areste teaches wherein the imaging condition is an imaging condition for improving a contrast of the region of interest included in the fluoroscopic image (Areste, contrast level adjustment in para 19).
Claims 11-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto in view of Petkov, in further view of Kitano, Storch, and Areste.
Regarding claim 11 (dependent on claim 4), Miyamoto in view of Petkov, Kitano, and Storch fails to explicitly teach wherein the processor is configured to: set an imaging condition for improving the image quality of the region in the fluoroscopic image corresponding to the region of interest in the case of performing the fluoroscopy; and perform the fluoroscopy based on the imaging condition.
However, Areste teaches a fluoroscopy imaging system (Areste, abstract), including set an imaging condition for improving the image quality of a region in the fluoroscopic image corresponding to the region of interest in the case of performing the fluoroscopy; and perform the fluoroscopy based on the imaging condition (Areste, para 19: “As such, the system may automatically alter and/or the operator may alter the range, step size, and default value of the contrast level adjustment during the imaging procedure as desired. Such a feature may offer distinct advantages over systems in which such values are predetermined during system setup and remain fixed throughout the imaging operation. For instance, by enabling the automatic and/or manual configurability of the adjustments, embodiments of the present invention may facilitate the dynamic adjustment and optimization of the video displayed on the monitor 26 during the imaging operation.”; see also para 20; Note that 1) correctly adjusting contrast levels to optimize the video improves the quality of the captured image and 2) setting an imaging condition to improve the image quality of the entire frame also improves the image quality of a region of interest in the frame.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the imaging condition for improving the capture of a fluoroscopic image, as taught by Areste, with the fluoroscopic apparatus taught by Miyamoto in view of Petkov and Kitano in order to improve the quality of the captured images by optimizing the contrast (Areste, para 13: “In such applications, automatically altering such parameters during the fluoroscopy operation and/or enabling the radiologist to dynamically alter such parameters during the fluoroscopy operation may provide the operator with increased flexibility, thus enabling the operator to better optimize the acquired images.”).
Regarding claim 12 (dependent on claim 5), Miyamoto in view of Petkov, Kitano, and Storch fails to explicitly teach wherein the processor is configured to: set an imaging condition for improving the image quality of the region in the fluoroscopic image corresponding to the region of interest in the case of performing the fluoroscopy; and perform the fluoroscopy based on the imaging condition.
However, Areste teaches a fluoroscopy imaging system (Areste, abstract), including set an imaging condition for improving the image quality of a region in the fluoroscopic image corresponding to the region of interest in the case of performing the fluoroscopy; and perform the fluoroscopy based on the imaging condition (Areste, para 19: “As such, the system may automatically alter and/or the operator may alter the range, step size, and default value of the contrast level adjustment during the imaging procedure as desired. Such a feature may offer distinct advantages over systems in which such values are predetermined during system setup and remain fixed throughout the imaging operation. For instance, by enabling the automatic and/or manual configurability of the adjustments, embodiments of the present invention may facilitate the dynamic adjustment and optimization of the video displayed on the monitor 26 during the imaging operation.”; see also para 20; Note that 1) correctly adjusting contrast levels to optimize the video improves the quality of the captured image and 2) setting an imaging condition to improve the image quality of the entire frame also improves the image quality of a region of interest in the frame.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the imaging condition for improving the capture of a fluoroscopic image, as taught by Areste, with the fluoroscopic apparatus taught by Miyamoto in view of Petkov and Kitano in order to improve the quality of the captured images by optimizing the contrast (Areste, para 13: “In such applications, automatically altering such parameters during the fluoroscopy operation and/or enabling the radiologist to dynamically alter such parameters during the fluoroscopy operation may provide the operator with increased flexibility, thus enabling the operator to better optimize the acquired images.”).
Regarding claim 14 (dependent on claim 11), Miyamoto in view of Petkov, Kitano, Storch, and Areste teaches wherein the imaging condition is an imaging condition for improving a contrast of the region of interest included in the fluoroscopic image (Areste, contrast level adjustment in para 19).
Regarding claim 15 (dependent on claim 12), Miyamoto in view of Petkov, Kitano, Storch, and Areste teaches wherein the imaging condition is an imaging condition for improving a contrast of the region of interest included in the fluoroscopic image (Areste, contrast level adjustment in para 19).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Patent No. 2019/0080442 A1 teaches a method for selectively applying an image processing condition to a region of interest (para 70: “The processor is arranged to selectively adjust the amplification and tone adjustment of the original image to provide an enhanced image of the subject/feature(s) of interest”).
U.S. Patent No. 2022/0005220 A1 teaches a method for detecting the surgeon in images during an operation (see abstract and FIG.3, attached below).
PNG
media_image3.png
118
449
media_image3.png
Greyscale
U.S. Patent No. 2015/0098550 A1 adjusts radiation imaging parameters based on regions of interest and regions of non-interest (para 12: “a controller configured to control the filter so that X-rays of a lower dose than a dose of X-rays made incident on the region of interest are made incident on a region of non-interest within the region of the subject”).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMA E DRYDEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1179. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 EST.
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, ANDREW BEE can be reached at (571) 270-5183. 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.
/EMMA E DRYDEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2677
/ANDREW W BEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights