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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claim 26) in the reply filed on February 23, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 27-29 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on February 23, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 31-32, and 35-36 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.
Regarding claim 31, the limitations “its six-degree-freedom pose” and “their detections” render the claim indefinite. As currently written the claim fails to define what structure has the six-degree-freedom pose and what structure’s detection using the biplanar X-ray images. The Examiner has interpreted the limitations as “a six-degree-freedom pose of the radiopaque wire markers” and “detection of the radiopaque wire makers”.
Regarding claim 32, the claim recites the limitations "the estimated pose" in lines 1-2 and “the pose” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As currently written, the claim relies upon claim 26 which fails to introduce “estimating a pose” and “a pose”. Claim 26 fails to recite limitation directed to estimating a pose. Claim 26 defines “a pose of the first reference marker”, “a pose of the second reference marker”, and “poses of independent image projections”. However, claims 26 and 32 fail to particularly point out which pose is being referred to as “the estimated pose” and “the pose”. The Examiner has interpreted the limitations as “the pose of the second of the second reference marker”.
Regarding claim 35, the claim recites the limitation "the projection poses", “the poses of the patient and calibration target”, and “the optical camera” in lines 1-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As currently written, the claim relies upon claims 26 and 34 which recite limitations directed to “a pose of the first reference marker”, “a pose of the second reference marker”, and “poses of independent image projections”. However, claims 35 and 26 fail to particularly point out with poses are being referred to as “the projection poses”. Claim 35 and claim 26 fail to introduce a limitation directed to “a pose of the patient and a pose of the calibration target” and fail to introduce “an optical camera”. Claims 26 and 35 fail to define poses of the patient and the calibration target being recorded by the optical camera. The optical camera is first introduced by Claim 30. The Examiner has interpreted the claim as being dependent on claim 30 and has interpreted claim as “wherein further comprises recording a pose of the patient and a pose of the calibration target by one or more external optical cameras, and wherein step D further comprises aligning the poses of the two independent image projections to the poses of the patient and calibration target reference markers”.
Regarding claim 36, the claim recites the limitations "the voxel-grid center" in line 2, and “the two-X-ray projection vectors” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Both claims 26 and 36 fail to recite limitations that introduce “a voxel-grid center” and “two-X-ray projection vectors”. The Examiner has interpreted the limitations as “a voxel-grid center” and “a first X-ray projection vector and a second X-ray vector”.
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 26, 32-34, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siewerdsen (U.S. 2020/0085404; notated as Siewerdsen ‘404) in view of Siewerdsen (U.S. 2017/0238897; notated as Siewerdsen ‘897).
Regarding claim 26:
Siewerdsen ‘404 discloses a method of calibration of spatial reference volumes comprising:
A) detecting a position of a first reference marker proximate a subject ([0034]-[0035], scans of multi-wire phantom, 3D pose is detected for each wire), the position of the first reference marker defining six degrees of freedom ([0034]-[0035], scans of multi-wire phantom, 3D pose is detected for each wire) and rotation ([0034]-[0035], scans of multi-wire phantom, 3D pose is detected for each wire) and translation data relative to a pose of the first reference marker ([0034]-[0035], scans of multi-wire phantom, 3D pose is detected for each wire);
B) detecting a position of a second reference marker proximate a calibration target on a radiographic image detector ([0034]-[0035], scans of multi-wire phantom, 3D pose is detected for each wire), the calibration target containing calibration markers with predetermined spatial coordinates relative to the calibration target ([0034]-[0035], scans of multi-wire phantom, 3D pose is detected for each wire) and visible in biplanar radiographic images detected by the radiographic image detector ([0034]-[0035], scans of multi-wire phantom, 3D pose is detected for each wire), the positions of the second reference marker defining six degrees of freedom([0034]-[0035], scans of multi-wire phantom, 3D pose is detected for each wire) and rotation ([0034]-[0035], scans of multi-wire phantom, 3D pose is detected for each wire) and translation data ([0034]-[0035], scans of multi-wire phantom, 3D pose is detected for each wire) relative to a pose of the second reference marker ([0034]-[0035], scans of multi-wire phantom, 3D pose is detected for each wire);;
C) determining a position of the calibration markers in at least two biplanar radiographic images detected by the radiographic image detector ([0040], pixel coordinates);
D) calibrating intrinsic and extrinsic parameters of the radiographic image detector ([0054]-[0056], poses determined), the parameters providing poses of independent image projections of each of the at least two biplanar images ([0054]-[0056], poses determined), and
E) generating a registration transform from the two independent image projections (Fig. 2A, 3D-2D view matching); and
F) reconstructing a three dimensional volume from the registration transform by back projection ([0074]-[0075], reconstruction from back projection)
However, Siewerdsen ‘404 fails to disclose E) generating a registration transform from the two independent image projections, the registration transform defining a center and orientation of a voxel grid usable for back projection and reconstruction of a three dimensional volume; and F) reconstructing a three dimensional volume from the registration transform by back projection of the voxel grid.
Siewerdsen ‘897 teaches E) generating a registration transform from the two independent image projections ([0037]-[0040], 3D-2D registration), the registration transform defining a center and orientation of a voxel grid usable for back projection and reconstruction of a three dimensional volume ([0065], back projection using voxels); and
F) reconstructing a three dimensional volume from the registration transform by back projection of the voxel grid ([0066], reconstruction).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Siewerdsen ‘404 with the back projection using a voxel grid taught by Siewerdsen ‘897 to improve image quality by increasing spatial resolution and reducing streak artifacts (Siewerdsen ‘897, [0035]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 32, as best understood:
The combination of Siewerdsen ‘404 and Siewerdsen ‘897 discloses the method of claim 26, wherein step B comprises validating the pose of the second of the second reference marker using a reprojection-error metric computed during calibration (Siewerdsen ‘897; [0092], reprojection error), and accepting the pose of the second of the second reference marker when the metric is within a tolerance (Siewerdsen ‘897; [0092], evaluation using reprojection error).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Siewerdsen ‘404 with the back projection using a voxel grid taught by Siewerdsen ‘897 to improve image quality by increasing spatial resolution and reducing streak artifacts (Siewerdsen ‘897, [0035]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 33:
The combination of Siewerdsen ‘404 and Siewerdsen ‘897 discloses the method of claim 26, wherein step C comprises enforcing that the calibration markers correspond to wire features (Siewerdsen ‘404; Fig. 1A, wire fiducials) arranged at known depths with known three-dimensional coordinates relative to the calibration target (Siewerdsen ‘404; [0024], wire placement).
Regarding claim 34:
The combination of Siewerdsen ‘404 and Siewerdsen ‘897 discloses the method of claim 26, wherein step D comprises determining extrinsic parameters for the two independent X-ray projections using the calibration target's known three-dimensional marker geometry (Siewerdsen ‘897; extrinsic parameters were determined and updated).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Siewerdsen ‘404 with the extrinsic parameter determination taught by Siewerdsen ‘897 to improve image quality by increasing spatial resolution and reducing streak artifacts (Siewerdsen ‘897, [0035]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 36, as best understood:
The combination of Siewerdsen ‘404 and Siewerdsen ‘897 discloses the method of claim 26, wherein step E comprises constraining the registration transform so that a voxel-grid center coincides with a point of closest intersection of a first X-ray projection vector and a second X-ray vector derived from the two independent projections (Siewerdsen ‘404; [0041], pixel pairing using center line).
Claims 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siewerdsen (U.S. 2020/0085404; notated as Siewerdsen ‘404) in view of Siewerdsen (U.S. 2017/0238897; notated as Siewerdsen ‘897) as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Kirby (U.S. 2014/0294140).
Regarding claim 30:
The combination of Siewerdsen ‘404 and Siewerdsen ‘897 discloses the method of claim 26.
However, the combination of Siewerdsen ‘404 and Siewerdsen ‘897 fails to disclose herein step B comprises a) detecting a reference marker on a calibration target via one or more external optical cameras.
Kirby teaches detecting a reference marker on a calibration target via one or more external optical cameras ([0056], optical camera detects that radiopaque marker).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Siewerdsen ‘404 with the optical camera taught by Kirby to improve image quality by improving deformation algorithm accuracy (Kirby, [0101]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 31, as best understood:
The combination of Siewerdsen ‘404, Siewerdsen ‘897, and Kirby discloses the method of claim 30, wherein the calibration target further comprises radiopaque wire markers having known three-dimensional coordinates (Siewerdsen ‘404; Fig. 1A, wire fiducials; [0024]) and step B further comprises b) determining a six-degree-freedom pose of the radiopaque wire markers using correspondences between the radiopaque wire markers on the calibration target and detection of the radiopaque wire makers via biplanar X-ray images (Siewerdsen ‘897; [0045], 6 DOF).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Siewerdsen ‘404 with the back projection using a voxel grid taught by Siewerdsen ‘897 to improve image quality by increasing spatial resolution and reducing streak artifacts (Siewerdsen ‘897, [0035]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 35 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:
The closest prior arts are Siewerdsen (U.S. 2020/0085404; notated as Siewerdsen ‘404), Siewerdsen (U.S. 2017/0238897; notated as Siewerdsen ‘897) and Kirby (U.S. 2014/0294140).
Regarding claim 35, as best understood:
The combination of Siewerdsen ‘404, Siewerdsen ‘897, and Kirby discloses the method of claim 30,
recording a pose of the patient and a pose of the calibration target by the one or more external optical cameras ([0056], optical camera detects that radiopaque marker).
However, the combination of Siewerdsen ‘404, Siewerdsen ‘897, and Kirby fails to disclose wherein step D further comprises aligning the poses of the two independent image projections to the poses of the patient and calibration target reference markers.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements absent of applicant’s disclosure, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record, if rewritten to overcome the 112(b) rejection above and if rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOORENA KEFAYATI whose telephone number is (469)295-9078. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 7:30 am to 4:30 pm.
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, David Makiya can be reached at 571-272-2273. 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.
/S.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/DAVID J MAKIYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884