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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 07/17/2025 has been accepted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-12, filed 07/17/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-5, 9-13, and 15 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the amendment of 07/17/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7, 9-10, 12-14, 16-18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rick (‘Quantitative Modelling of Microcalcification Detection in Digital Mammography’), in further view of Schirman (US 2019/0188853 A1), and in further view of Fischer (US 2020/0113534 A1).
Consider claims 1, 9, and 18, Rick discloses a computer comprising a processing system having stored therein a digital program configured to be executed by the processing system to perform the steps of (Abstract; digital mammography system):
[Claim 9: A computer implemented method for processing a digital radiographic image of a subject anatomy (Abstract; digital mammography system), the method comprising:]
storing a preprocessed radiographic image of a human anatomy captured in a digital radiographic detector (Introduction; digital mammography system, acquisition of images of breast tissue; 2 Image Acquisition; full-field digital mammography detector;
image processing the preprocessed radiographic image and storing the image processed radiographic image (Introduction; digital mammography system; 2 Image Acquisition; full-field digital mammography system);
combining the image processed radiographic image and the preprocessed radiographic image to form a residual image which, when displayed, visibly indicates a difference between image pixels of the image processed radiographic image and corresponding image pixels of the preprocessed radiographic image (FIG. 1, 2.5; “The result of the subtraction from the original image gives only the small structures and a threshold is used to retain only the structures with a high contrast”); and
[Claim 18: combining the image processed radiographic image and the preprocessed radiographic image to form a combined image (FIG. 1, 2.5; “The result of the subtraction from the original image gives only the small structures and a threshold is used to retain only the structures with a high contrast”);]
Rick fails to specifically disclose: [Claim 18: generating a confidence map based on the combined image;]
digitally comparing image pixels of the image processed radiographic image and corresponding image pixels of the preprocessed radiographic image to generate a confidence map, the confidence map including localized highlighting to identify one or more portions of the residual image that have levels of difference above a preselected threshold value as between the image pixels of the image processed radiographic image and the corresponding image pixels of the preprocessed radiographic image;
[Claim 18: and displaying the confidence map.]
In related art, Schirman discloses image processing the preprocessed image and storing the image processed radiographic image (Schirman ¶87, 97; storage/access of a first medical image and a second medical image);
combining the image processed radiographic image and the preprocessed radiographic image to form a residual image which, when displayed, visibly indicates a difference between image pixels of the image processed radiographic image and corresponding image pixels of the preprocessed radiographic image (Schirman FIG. 2C, ¶88, 93, 97; “generate a difference image representing intensity differences between the first medical image and the second medical image, and to determine an intensity distribution of the difference image”); and
[Claim 18: combining the image processed radiographic image and the preprocessed radiographic image to form a combined image (Schirman FIG. 2C, ¶88, 93, 97);]
digitally comparing image pixels of the image processed radiographic image and corresponding image pixels of the preprocessed radiographic image to generate a confidence map, the confidence map including localized highlighting to identify one or more portions of the residual image that have levels of difference above a preselected threshold value as between the image pixels of the image processed radiographic image and the corresponding image pixels of the preprocessed radiographic image (Schirman ¶33, 38, 88; “determine a plurality of intensity ranges in the intensity distribution, wherein each one of the plurality of intensity ranges is determined as a function of a respective one of the plurality of probability distributions. The processor 160 is further configured to label image data of the difference image by determining into which of the plurality of intensity ranges said labeled image data falls.”; ¶96-97, FIG. 4; visualization).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the calculation of the difference image of Schirman into the image processing method of Rick to improve image quality for later quantification (Rick 1). As stated by Schirman, with processing, “the difference image may be generated more accurately when an image registration and/or an intensity normalization between the first medical image and the second medical image,” and further a more accurate detection of differences (Schirman ¶37).
In related art, Fischer discloses [Claim 18: generating a confidence map based on the combined image (¶28-31; “a confidence map that shows, at least for each voxel modified by the image enhancement method, a corresponding reliability is generated.”);]
digitally comparing image pixels of the image processed image and corresponding image pixels of the preprocessed image to generate a confidence map (Fischer ¶28; generation of a confidence map that shows reliability for each modified voxel), the confidence map including localized highlighting to identify one or more portions of the residual image that have levels of difference above a preselected threshold value as between the image pixels of the image processed radiographic image and the corresponding image pixels of the preprocessed radiographic image (¶29-30; “the reliabilities or confidence values entered in the confidence map are color-coded according to a pre-defined scheme depending upon sizes or values. … therefore, the confidence map is generated as a heat map.”; ¶31; warning/indication issued if reliability is lower than a predetermined threshold value);
[Claim 18: and displaying the confidence map (¶28; displaying the confidence map).]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the confidence map of Fischer into the image processing method of Rick, as modified by Schirman, to further visualize image differences (Schirman ¶41-42). The combination of Rick, as modified by Schirman and Fischer, yields the predictable result of a confidence map over the residual image that highlights differences of a magnitude over a selected threshold.
Consider claims 3, 12, and 20, Rick, as modified by Schirman and Fischer, discloses the claimed invention wherein the step of combining comprises subtracting one of the image processed radiographic image and the preprocessed radiographic image from the other (Rick 2.5; Schirman ¶27, 93).
Consider claims 7 and 14, Rick, as modified by Schirman and Fischer, discloses the claimed invention wherein the processing system is further configured to graphically overlay the residual image onto the image processed radiographic image or the preprocessed radiographic image (Schirman ¶41-42; Fischer ¶29, 54).
Consider claim 13, Rick, as modified by Schirman and Fischer, discloses the claimed invention further comprising determining a standard deviation of noise in the residual image (Rick 2.2; Schirman ¶30; Fischer ¶21-25).
Consider claim 16, Rick, as modified by Schirman and Fischer, discloses the claimed invention wherein the processing system is further configured to perform the steps of determining a difference between the image pixels of the image processed radiographic image and the corresponding image pixels of the preprocessed radiographic image, and determining a numerical value that indicates a magnitude of the determined difference (Schirman ¶88, 93).
Consider claim 4, Rick, as modified by Schirman and Fischer, discloses the claimed invention further comprising determining a standard deviation of image information in the residual image to determine the numerical value, whereby a higher standard deviation results in determining a lower numerical value as compared to a lower standard deviation of image information (Schirman; ¶30; Fischer ¶23, 30).
Consider claims 17 and 21, Rick, as modified by Schirman and Fischer, discloses the claimed invention further comprising determining a difference between image pixels of the pre-processed radiographic image and corresponding pixels of the processed radiographic image and computing a numerical value indicating a magnitude of the difference (Schirman ¶88, 93), whereby a greater determined difference proportionally lowers the computed numerical value (Fischer ¶21, 23, 54, 56).
Consider claim 10, Rick, as modified by Schirman and Fischer, discloses the claimed invention further comprising: storing an image set that links the pre-processed radiographic image captured in the digital detector along with the processed radiographic image (Rick Introduction) version corresponding to the pre-processed radiographic image (Schirman ¶87); and
storing the numerical value corresponding to the processed radiographic image version (Fischer ¶47).
Claims 2, 11, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rick, in view of Schirman and Fischer, as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 7, 9-10, 12-14, 16-18, and 20-21 above, and further in view of Topfer (US 2013/0182934 A1).
Consider claims 2, 11, and 19, Rick, as modified by Schirman and Fischer, while disclosing many image enhancement techniques (Schirman ¶37), fails to disclose the claimed invention wherein the step of image processing comprises correcting gain, offset, and defects in the preprocessed radiographic image.
In related art, Topfer discloses wherein the step of image processing comprises correcting gain, offset, and defects [claim 11: in the step of image processing.] in the preprocessed radiographic image (Topfer Abstract, ¶4; “Defect mapping and correction procedures are commonly coupled with gain and offset calibration, … which are then offset-corrected … In the gain correction step,”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the methods to correct gain, offset, and defects in the radiographic image of Topfer into the teachings of Rick, as modified by Schirman and Fischer, to compensate for fixed pattern noise introduced by the detector (Topfer ¶4) and to manage defective pixels and produce images with few visible defective pixels (Topfer ¶6). These improvements advance the art of diagnostic imaging (Topfer ¶17). As stated by Schirman, with processing, “the difference image may be generated more accurately when an image registration and/or an intensity normalization between the first medical image and the second medical image,” and further a more accurate detection of differences (Schirman ¶37).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rick, in view of Schirman and Fischer, as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 7, 9-10, 12-14, 16-18, and 20-21 above, and further in view of Lu (‘Adaptive Image De-noising Method Based on Spatial Autocorrelation’).
Consider claim 5, Rick, as modified by Schirman and Fischer, fails to specifically disclose the claimed invention wherein the processing system is further configured to determine an auto correlation value in the residual image.
In related art, Lu discloses wherein the processing system is further configured to determine an auto correlation value in the residual image (Lu Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the determination of an autocorrelation value of Lu into the teachings of Rick, as modified by Schirman and Fischer, to enhance the residual image quality (Lu Abstract). As stated by Schirman, with processing, “the difference image may be generated more accurately when an image registration and/or an intensity normalization between the first medical image and the second medical image,” and further a more accurate detection of differences (Schirman ¶37).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rick, in view of Schirman and Fischer, as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 7, 9-10, 12-14, 16-18, and 20-21 above, and further in view of Yanagita (US 5,982,953 A).
Consider claim 15, Rick, as modified by Schirman and Fischer, fails to specifically disclose the claimed invention further comprising simultaneously displaying the residual image, the image processed radiographic image, and the pre-processed radiographic image.
In related art, Yanagita discloses simultaneously displaying (Yanagita Abstract; image displaying apparatus) the residual image, the image processed radiographic image, and the pre-processed radiographic image (Yanagita Col. 23 lines 17-27; “a plurality of images of the same radiographic object to be displayed simultaneously … can include plural images obtained by radiographing the same radiographic object simultaneously under different X-ray energy, and energy subtraction images generated through subtraction between the aforementioned images, in addition to the temporally sequential images obtained by radiographing the same radiographic object at different hours or processed images from temporally sequential images generated by the use of the temporally sequential images.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the image display apparatus simultaneously displaying a plurality of images of Yanagita into the teachings of Rick, as modified by Schirman and Fischer, to increase ease of comparison. When a plurality of images are simultaneously displayed on the same display, it is easy to compare the images with each other.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. ‘Confidence estimation for medical image registration based on stereo confidences’.
US 5,768,405 A discloses a digital image processing method.
US 2010/0040199 A1 discloses a radiographic imaging system.
US 2020/0273217 A1 discloses a method for digital subtraction angiography.
US 2016/0227220 A1 discloses a method of generating a measure of visual quality of processed images.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY HYTREK whose telephone number is (703)756-4562. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
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, Steve Koziol can be reached at (408)918-7630. 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.
/ASHLEY HYTREK/Examiner, Art Unit 2665
/Stephen R Koziol/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2665