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 Status
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/15/25 has been entered.
Claims 1-4, 10, 15-16, and 18 are amended, Claims 11 and 19 are cancelled, Claim 20-22 are added, Claims 1-10, 13-18, and 20-22 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10, 13-18, and 20-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-4, 7, 10, 13, 15-17, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHIMAMURA et al. (US 20160120491 A1 Hereinafter “SHIMAMURA”) in view of Wagner et al. (US 20200410666 A1 Hereinafter “Wagner”) in further view of Miller (US 20020085667 A1 Hereinafter “Miller”).
Regarding claim 1, SHIMAMURA discloses an X-ray diagnostic apparatus
comprising:
([0094]: “the photographing apparatus 1 includes an irradiation unit (a radiation source) 11, an irradiation control device 12, an imaging unit (a radiation detecting unit) 13, and a reading control device 14” (Emphasis added). This radiation detection unit captures the plurality of time-series x-ray images); and
processing circuitry ([0103]: “The control unit 21 is configured by a central processing unit (CPU)”) configured to:
acquire the plurality of time-series X-ray images of an object within which a moving target is provided, ([0090]: “The radiographic dynamic image photographing system according to Embodiment 1 photographs a radiographic image of a human body or an animal body as a subject in a situation in which a physical state of a target region of the subject changes periodically over time”. [0002] states “a dynamic image (an image group including a plurality of frame images) in which movement of an affected part is captured”. The moving target in the medical imaging process is the blood in the lungs, specifically how the location of the density changes between frames “As described above, a large difference value (density difference) moves (spatially changes) on the frame images with photographing time between the frame images MI (temporal change)…… Thus, even movement of blood flow in the lung field can be understood, for example, by finding a part of the lung field region in which there is no blood flow if the test subject M is not a healthy individual” [0210]);
generate, based on two or more of the plurality of time-series X-ray images, a motion suppression image in which motion related components regarding the moving target are suppressed more than other components in the two or more of the plurality of time-series X-ray images, wherein, in the motion suppression image, each pixel has a representative value of pixel values of the two or more of the plurality of time-series X-ray images so that the moving target is suppressed ([0316]: “Specifically, the average pixel statistical value, which is represented by Ave, is obtained as “(SM1+SM21+SM22+SM23)/4””. Using two or more of the plurality of X-ray images (SM1, SM21, SM22, and SM23), a motion suppression image is generated (SM1+SM21+SM22+SM23)/4). Since this is an average image, motion related to the moving target would be suppressed relative to the still components since the pixel values that are representative of the two or more of the plurality of time series X-ray images (consistent over the 4 frames that have no movement) would have more contrast than pixel values that change over frames (pixels associated with the movement);
generate a difference image by difference processing between the motion suppression image and one of the time-series X-ray images ([0316]: Equation 1 describes “DFS1=SM1+(SM1−Ave)×m”. SM1-Ave is the difference image that is generated by difference processing between the motion suppression image (Ave) and one of the time-series X-ray images (SM1));
generate an emphasis processing image ([0316]: Equation 1 describes “DFS1=SM1+(SM1−Ave)×m”. The process of generating the difference image extracts the motion components. These components are then scaled up by m, and then added back to the time-series X-ray images to create a difference emphasis values, these difference emphasis values show are where the differences are larger which emphasizes where the movement is, so these are the emphasis processing image and these are based on the generated difference images since the generated difference image is the motion components scaled up and readded to the time-series X-ray images); and
display the generated emphasis processing images as a moving image, ([0313]: “For example, thumbnail images SG1c and SG21c to SG23c for comparison may be displayed in the positions of the first thumbnail image SG1 and the second thumbnail images SG21 to SG23 illustrated in FIG. 26(a) so as to replace the first thumbnail image SG1 and the second thumbnail images SG21 to SG23”. The images for comparison as taught to represent the differences produced by the difference calculations: “the “thumbnail image SG1c for comparison” reflecting the difference emphasis value DFS1” ([0317]). These comparison images are said to replace the thumbnail images in Fig 26(a), and Fig. 26(a) is described as having similar functions to the display screen 17(b): “FIG. 26(a) illustrates a display screen having a similar function to that of FIG. 17(b)” ([0312]). Fig. 17(b) describes a thumbnail display method which displays the thumbnail as a dynamic image (moving image) for moving image comparison: “In a thumbnail display method (1), the display unit 34 performs processing to play back a dynamic image corresponding to a thumbnail image for moving image comparison. FIG. 17 is a schematic diagram illustrating the thumbnail display method (1)” ([0219-2020])).
It is presumed that SHIMAMURA’s X-ray device would include an X-ray tube since the tube is what generates the X-rays in the device. However, SHIMAMURA does not expressly disclose their X-ray machine containing an X-ray tube.
Another prior art Wagner teaches an X-ray machine with an X-ray tube ([0011]: “In accordance with another non-limiting example of the disclosure, a fluoroscopy imaging system is provided that includes an x-ray source assembly coupled at one end and a x-ray detector array assembly”. This X-ray source comes from a C-arm x-ray imaging system, which contains an X-ray tube “In the non-limiting example of FIG. 1, the C-arm x-ray imaging system”).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify SHIMAMURA’s X-ray system to include Wagner’s X-ray hardware including an X-ray tube because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Wagner’s X-ray hardware is comparable to SHIMAMURA’s X-ray system because they both are systems for capturing X-ray imaging data. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify SHIMAMURA’s X-ray system to include SHIMIZU’s X-ray hardware including an X-ray tube in order to obtain the predictable result of obtaining X-ray imaging data.
SHIMAMURA does not expressly disclose the moving target being a contrast agent, they emphasize the motion of the blood flow in the images, but contrast agent is not present.
However, Miller teaches using a contrast agent in the blood flow to help the motion of the flow be more easily detectable due to the contrast ([0004]: “Fluoroscopy is employed with a contrast agent to observe motion within a patient. A contrast agent, such as barium, may be swallowed or injected into a blood vessel or organ (such as an intestine). The contrast agent increases the absorption of x-rays and provides increased contrast in an x-ray image”).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify SHIMAMURA’s moving image display process to include Miller’s use of contrast agent because such a modification is taught, suggested, or motivated by the art. More specifically, the motivation to modify SHIMAMURA to include Miller is expressly provided by Miller, stating that “the contrast agent increases the absorption of x-rays and provides increased contrast in an x-ray image”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify SHIMAMURA’s moving image display process to include Miller’s use of contrast agent with the motivation of increased contrast of the flow in X-ray images. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of increased contrast of the flow in X-ray images making it easier to detect motion.
SHIMAMURA does not expressly disclose wherein frames of the moving image are composed of a plurality of the emphasis process images.
However, Wagner teaches displaying generated emphasis processing images as a moving image, wherein frames of the moving image are composed of the emphasis process images ([0056]: “The process 200 then includes the displaying 216 of the static roadmap and the third plurality of images 210 showing the interventional medical device aligned on the static roadmap using the motion transformation 214. The alignment of the interventional medical device is based on a user selection of: (1) motion compensation of the interventional medical device relative to the static roadmap to produce a plurality of images that do not show patient motion (e.g., vasculature motion due to respiratory motion”. This interventional medical device is used in the transformed roadmap “In one case, the transformed roadmap 238 can be motion compensation of the image of the medical instrument relative to the static roadmap 238”([0060]). The enhanced guidewire can be seen combined with the roadmap for display in Fig. 3. This combined roadmap is displayed in a live image format “The process 220 can generate a real-time display 242 of the live images 234, along with the transformed roadmap 238 in either of at least two configurations. In the first configuration, the live images 234 and the static roadmap 228 are displayed and the transformed roadmap 238 is the motion compensation of the image of the medical device, which is overlaid on the roadmap 238” ([0060]). This is further supported in the [0009] where they recite dynamic images (moving images) of the medical device on static roadmaps are displayed, “The method includes displaying a static roadmap and a plurality of dynamic images to show the interventional medical device aligned on the static roadmap using motion compensation” (Emphasis added)).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify SHIMAMURA’s moving image display process to include Wagner’s moving image display process (where the frames of the moving images are the emphasis process images) because such a modification is the result of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. More specifically, Wagner’s moving image display process (where the frames of the moving images are the emphasis process images) permits the ability to display movement tracked in the body in a moving image format using previously processed images. This known benefit in Wagner is applicable to SHIMAMURA as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to tracking motion in the body and emphasizing the motion for display. Therefore, it would have been recognized that modifying SHIMAMURA’s moving image display process to include Wagner’s moving image display process (where the frames of the moving images are the emphasis process images) would have yielded predictable results because (i) the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate Wagner’s moving image display process (where the frames of the moving images are the emphasis process images) in tracking motion in the body and emphasizing the motion for display and (ii) the benefits of such a combination would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of SHIMAMURA, Wagner, and Miller teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, in addition, SHIMAMURA further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to generate each emphasis processing image from an X-ray image by compositing the X-ray image and the difference image ([0316]: Equation 1 below describes the process of generating a difference emphasis image. The X-ray images (SM1) are subtracted from by the motion suppression image (average pixel statistical value “Ave”). This process of subtracting the average from the original would emphasize the differences which are the motion related components (difference image). These components are then scaled up by m, and then added back to the original image to create a difference emphasis values, which are seen as functionally similar to an emphasis processing image).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of SHIMAMURA, Wagner, and Miller teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, in addition, SHIMAMURA further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
extract the motion related component in each of the plurality of time series X-ray images by subtracting the motion suppression image from each of the plurality of time series X-ray images ([0316]: Equation 1 below describes the process of generating a difference emphasis values. The X-ray images (SM1) are subtracted from by the motion suppression image (average pixel statistical value “Ave”). This process of subtracting The average from the original would emphasize the differences which are the motion related components in each of the X-ray images, hence the motion related components are extracted. These X-ray images in the equations are time series).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of SHIMAMURA, Wagner, and Miller teaches the apparatus according to claim 3, in addition, SHIMAMURA further teaches the processing circuitry is further configured to generate, as the motion suppression image, a mean value image or a median value image of two or more of the plurality of time-series X-ray images ([0316]: “Specifically, the average pixel statistical value, which is represented by Ave, is obtained as “(SM1+SM21+SM22+SM23)/4””. Averaging the pixel values of multiple X-ray images like this suppresses the motion components).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of SHIMAMURA, Wagner, and Miller teaches the apparatus according to claim 2, in addition, SHIMAMURA further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to multiply the extracted motion related component by a factor to generate an intermediate emphasis image ([0316]: Equation 1 below describes the process of generating a difference emphasis values. The X-ray images (SM1) are subtracted from by the motion suppression image (average pixel statistical value “Ave”). This process of subtracting The average from the original would emphasize the differences which are the motion related components. This component is then scaled up by the factor m to create an intermediate emphasis image), and
composite the intermediate emphasis image and the X-ray image to generate the emphasis processing image ([0316]: Equation 1 below describes the process of generating a difference emphasis image. The X-ray images (SM1) are subtracted from by the motion suppression image (average pixel statistical value “Ave”). This process of subtracting The average from the original would emphasize the differences which are the motion related components. These components are then scales up by m, and then added back to the original image to create a difference emphasis values, which are seen as functionally similar to an emphasis processing image).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of SHIMAMURA, Wagner, and Miller teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, in addition, SHIMAMURA further teaches wherein the motion related components include a movement derived from at least one of pulsation and respiration of the object ([0140]: “As illustrated in FIG. 4, frame images M1 to M10 (MI) acquired by the dynamic image acquiring unit 110 are images obtained by continuously photographing one period of the respiratory cycle at constant photographing timings”. The movement of the blood is detected inside the lungs. The lungs act as the object which both pulsate when breathing and respirate, both the pulsation and respiration cause motion of the lungs and therefore motion of the contrast in the blood flow in the lungs).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of SHIMAMURA, Wagner, and Miller teaches the apparatus according to claim 11, in addition, SHIMAMURA further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to generate each emphasis processing image by adding the difference image multiplied by a factor and the X-ray image corresponding to the difference image ([0316]: Equation 1 below describes the process of generating a difference emphasis values. The X-ray images (SM1) are subtracted from by the representative value image (average pixel statistical value “Ave”). This process of subtracting The average from the original would emphasize the differences which are the motion related components. These components are then multiplied by m, and then added back to the original image to create a difference emphasis values, which are seen as functionally similar to an emphasis processing image).
Regarding claim 15, the content of claim 15 is similar to the content of claim 1, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, the content of claim 16 is similar to the content of claim 1, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of SHIMAMURA, Wagner, and Miller teaches the apparatus according to claim 16, in addition, SHIMAMURA further teaches wherein:
the acquiring of the X-ray images is executed by any one of a client and a server, both of which the medical image processing system includes ([0090]:” The radiographic dynamic image photographing system according to Embodiment 1 photographs a radiographic image of a human body or an animal body as a subject in a situation in which a physical state of a target region of the subject changes periodically over time”. [0002] states “a dynamic image (an image group including a plurality of frame images) in which movement of an affected part is captured”. The system also includes [0107]: “The communication unit 25 includes a LAN adapter, a modem, a terminal adapter (TA), and the like, and controls data transmission and reception with each device connected to the communication network NT”. Looking at Figure 3, this allows the system (31) to act as a server, from which the photographing apparatus and control apparatus (1 and 2) can connect to and act as its clients. The system (31) receives information from its clients so it can perform other operations with the information);
the extracting the motion related component is executed by any one of the client and the server ([0316]: Equation 1 below describes the process of generating a difference emphasis values. The X-ray images (SM1) are subtracted from by the motion suppression image (average pixel statistical value “Ave”). This process of subtracting The average from the original would emphasize the differences which are the motion related components, hence the motion related components are extracted; [0310] discloses that this processing is performed by pixel value determining unit 142b in system 31 which is interpreted as the claimed server); and
the generating of the emphasis processing image is executed by any one of the client and the server ([0316]: Equation 1 below describes the process of generating a difference emphasis image. The X-ray images (SM1) are subtracted from by the motion suppression image (average pixel statistical value “Ave”). This process of subtracting The average from the original would emphasize the differences which are the motion related components. These components are then scales up by m, and then added back to the original image to create a difference emphasis values, which are seen as functionally similar to an emphasis processing image; [0310] discloses that this processing is performed by pixel value determining unit 142b in system 31 which is interpreted as the claimed server).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of SHIMAMURA, Wagner, and Miller teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, in addition, SHIMAMURA further teaches wherein the acquired plurality of time-series X-ray images includes a component related to a movement of the ([0209]: “For example, at the peak of the heart rate (see a point Rp of FIG. 16(a)), blood flow is concentrated in the vicinity of the heart, and thus a density difference increases and a difference value increases on the frame image in the vicinity of the heart (see, for example, a region dr of FIG. 16(b))”. The blood flow is the object in which motion is being tracked, since the blood flows in and out of the heart, it moves with the heart beat), the acquired plurality of time-series X-ray images being acquired by imaging the heart ([0134]: “The image processing apparatus 3 in the present embodiment uses a dynamic image obtained by photographing the chest mainly including the heart and both lungs”).
Miller additionally teaches using a contrast agent in the blood flow to help the motion of the flow be more easily detectable due to the contrast ([0004]: “Fluoroscopy is employed with a contrast agent to observe motion within a patient. A contrast agent, such as barium, may be swallowed or injected into a blood vessel or organ (such as an intestine). The contrast agent increases the absorption of x-rays and provides increased contrast in an x-ray image”. Using Miller’s contrast agent of SHIMAMURA’s motion detection of the blood stream leads to the combination of SHIMAMURA and Miller teaching “the acquired plurality of time-series X-ray images includes a component related to a movement of the contrast agent that has been injected into a heart of the object and moves with a heartbeat”).
The rationale for this combination is similar to the rationale for the claim 1 combination of SHIMAMURA and Miller due to similar methods of combination and benefits.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of SHIMAMURA, Wagner, and Miller teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, in addition, SHIMAMURA further teaches wherein the plurality of time-series X-ray images are X-ray fluoroscopic images ([0090]: “The radiographic dynamic image photographing system according to Embodiment 1 photographs a radiographic image of a human body or an animal body as a subject in a situation in which a physical state of a target region of the subject changes periodically over time”. [0002] states “a dynamic image (an image group including a plurality of frame images) in which movement of an affected part is captured”. The moving target in the medical imaging process is the blood in the lungs, specifically how the location of the density changes between frames “As described above, a large difference value (density difference) moves (spatially changes) on the frame images with photographing time between the frame images MI (temporal change)…… Thus, even movement of blood flow in the lung field can be understood, for example, by finding a part of the lung field region in which there is no blood flow if the test subject M is not a healthy individual” [0210]. The dynamic image captures time series X-ray images to detect motion which is functionally similar to fluoroscopy).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHIMAMURA et al. (US 20160120491 A1 Hereinafter “SHIMAMURA”) in view of Wagner et al. (US 20200410666 A1 Hereinafter “Wagner”) in further view of Miller (US 20020085667 A1 Hereinafter “Miller”) in further view of KUWATA et al. (US 20180368797 A1 Hereinafter “KUWATA”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of SHIMAMURA, Wagner, and Miller teaches the apparatus according to claim 3, in addition, SHIMAMURA further teaches ([0316]: “Specifically, the average pixel statistical value, which is represented by Ave, is obtained as“(SM1+SM21+SM22+SM23)/4”. Any new captured images would update this image. Alternatively, SM23 can read on an image which updates the average.)
The combination of SHIMAMURA, Wagner, and Miller does not expressly disclose wherein when an X-ray irradiation is switched from ON to OFF and then returned to ON, and using the images captured before it was turned off and when it was turned back on.
However, KUWATA teaches an X-ray irradiation is switched from ON to OFF and then returned to ON and images are captured before it was turned off and when it was turned back on ([0139]: “After the capture-ready state is confirmed, the user presses the second step of the exposure switch. The radiation controller 32 instructs the high-voltage generator 33 to emit radiation rays continuously for a predetermined time or emit pulsed radiation rays at a predetermined cycle (Step S10)”. Pulsed radiation comprises turning the radiation on, off, then back on for imaging. This pulsed radiation is also used to create a dynamic image ([0080]: “A series of images acquired through the serial capturing operations is hereinafter referred to as a “dynamic image” and each of images constituting the dynamic images is referred to as a “frame image””. [0142]: “The FPD 102 transfers the generated dynamic image data to the console 4 via the communication unit 21 of the medical cart 101 (Step S12)”) similar to the dynamic image in SHIMAMURA).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the combination of SHIMAMURA, Wagner, and Miller’s dynamic imaging capture process with KUWATA’s pulsating X-ray imaging process because such a modification is the result of simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result. More specifically, the combination of SHIMAMURA, Wagner, and Miller’s dynamic imaging capture process and KUWATA’s pulsating X-ray imaging process perform the same general and predictable function, the predictable function being generating a dynamic image using X-ray radiation imaging. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of the combination of SHIMAMURA, Wagner, and Miller’s dynamic imaging capture process by replacing it with KUWATA’s pulsating X-ray imaging process. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of SHIMAMURA, Wagner, and Miller teaches the apparatus according to claim 3, in addition, SHIMAMURA further teaches configured to generate the motion suppression image ([0316]: “Specifically, the average pixel statistical value, which is represented by Ave, is obtained as “(SM1+SM21+SM22+SM23)/4””)
The combination of SHIMAMURA, Wagner, and Miller does not expressly disclose wherein when an irradiation field in X-ray imaging of the object is changed, and before the change is used for the part of the changed irradiation field that overlaps with the irradiation field before the change.
However, KUWATA teaches changing the irradiation field ([0139]: “After the capture-ready state is confirmed, the user presses the second step of the exposure switch. The radiation controller 32 instructs the high-voltage generator 33 to emit radiation rays continuously for a predetermined time or emit pulsed radiation rays at a predetermined cycle (Step S10)”. Pulsed radiation comprises turning the radiation on, off, then back on for imaging. This changes to radiation from on, to off, then back on. Hence the irradiation field is changed. This pulsed radiation is also used to create a dynamic image ([0080]: “A series of images acquired through the serial capturing operations is hereinafter referred to as a “dynamic image” and each of images constituting the dynamic images is referred to as a “frame image””. [0142]: “The FPD 102 transfers the generated dynamic image data to the console 4 via the communication unit 21 of the medical cart 101 (Step S12)”) similar to the dynamic image in SHIMAMURA).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute SHIMAMURA, Wagner, and Miller’s dynamic imaging capture process with KUWATA’s pulsating X-ray imaging process because such a modification is the result of simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result. More specifically, SHIMAMURA, Wagner, and Miller’s dynamic imaging capture process and KUWATA’s pulsating X-ray imaging process perform the same general and predictable function, the predictable function being generating a dynamic image using X-ray radiation imaging. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of SHIMAMURA, Wagner, and Miller’s dynamic imaging capture process by replacing it with KUWATA’s pulsating X-ray imaging process. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Claims 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHIMAMURA et al. (US 20160120491 A1 Hereinafter “SHIMAMURA”) in view Wagner et al. (US 20200410666 A1 Hereinafter “Wagner”) in further view of Miller (US 20020085667 A1 Hereinafter “Miller”) in further view of Feuerlein et al. (US 20070165930 A1 Hereinafter “Feuerlein”).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of SHIMAMURA, Wagner, and Miller teaches the
apparatus according to claim 1, in addition, SHIMAMURA further teaches wherein the processing circuitry ([0103]: “The control unit 21 is configured by a central processing unit (CPU)”) is further configured to
The combination of SHIMAMURA, Wagner, and Miller does not expressly disclose processing circuitry is adapted to narrow a window width of the emphasis processing image such that the target is emphasized.
However, Feuerlein teaches narrowing a window width of an image such that the contrast is increased ([0012]): “The contrast can be controlled by means of the window width, with narrow windows producing particularly high-contrast).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify SHIMAMURA, Wagner, and Miller’s image processing to include Feuerlein’s window width narrowing because such a modification is taught, suggested, or motivated by the art. More specifically, the motivation to modify SHIMAMURA, Wagner, and Miller’s to include Feuerlein is expressly provided by Feuerlein, stating that narrow windows producing particularly high-contrast, which is the objective of SHIMAMURA, Wagner, and Miller’s to differentiate the moving components of the images in the form of difference emphasis images. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify SHIMAMURA, Wagner, and Miller’s image processing to include Feuerlein’s window width narrowing with the motivation of increased image contrast. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of increased contrast.
Regarding claim 14, the content of claim 14 is similar to the content of claim 9, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as claim 9.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHIMAMURA et al. (US 20160120491 A1 Hereinafter “SHIMAMURA”) in view of Wagner et al. (US 20200410666 A1 Hereinafter “Wagner”) in further view of Miller (US 20020085667 A1 Hereinafter “Miller”) in further view of JEONG at al. (US 20160350910 A1 Hereinafter “JEONG”).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of SHIMAMURA, Wagner, and Miller teaches the
apparatus of claim 1, in addition, SHIMAMURA further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
generate image data of an intermediate emphasis image([0316]: Equation 1 below describes the process of generating a difference emphasis values. The X-ray images (SM1) are subtracted from by the motion suppression image (average pixel statistical value “Ave”). This process of subtracting the average from the original would emphasize the differences which are the motion related components. This component is then scaled up by the factor m to create an intermediate emphasis image) ; and
generate the emphasis processing image based on the image data of the intermediate emphasis image([0316]: Equation 1 below describes the process of generating a difference emphasis image. The X-ray images (SM1) are subtracted from by the motion suppression image (average pixel statistical value “Ave”). This process of subtracting The average from the original would emphasize the differences which are the motion related components. These components are then scales up by m, and then added back to the original image to create a difference emphasis values, which are seen as functionally similar to an emphasis processing image).
The combination of SHIMAMURA, Wagner, and Miller does not expressly disclose converting the X-ray images into a plurality of frequency bands, processing those bands to generate intermediate emphasis images, and generating an emphasis processing image based on the multiple intermediate emphasis processing images.
However, JEONG teaches breaking X-ray image into a plurality of frequency bands, processing them to enhance their emphasis (contrast) and generating an emphasis processing image based on all the intermediate emphasis processing images (Fig. 3: “Finally, the image enhancer 330 may synthesize a plurality of enhanced detailed images to generate one enhanced image. Since each of the plurality of detailed images has a natural frequency band, the plurality of detailed images may be synthesized to restore an enhanced image having the same frequency band as the original X-ray image”).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of SHIMAMURA, Wagner, and Miller’s emphasis processing device to include JEONG’s X-ray decomposition into band data, band data processing, and band data composition because such a modification is taught, suggested, or motivated by the art. More specifically, the motivation to modify the combination of SHIMAMURA, Wagner, and Miller to include JEONG’s X-ray decomposition into band data, band data processing, and band data composition is expressly provided by JEONG, stating that “A synthesized X-ray image generated by the image synthesizer 340 may have an improved signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) compared to an X-ray image of a specific energy band generated by the X-ray detector 120” ([0114]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the combination of SHIMAMURA, Wagner, and Miller’s emphasis processing device to include JEONG’s X-ray decomposition into band data, band data processing, and band data composition with the motivation of improving the signal to noise ratio. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of improved signal to noise ratio using multiple bands as opposed to a single band.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHIMAMURA et al. (US 20160120491 A1 Hereinafter “SHIMAMURA”) in view Wagner et al. (US 20200410666 A1 Hereinafter “Wagner”) in further view of Miller (US 20020085667 A1 Hereinafter “Miller”) in further view of Miyamoto (US 20120250974 A1 Hereinafter “Miyamoto”).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of SHIMAMURA, Wagner, and Miller teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, in addition, SHIMAMURA further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
display ([0313]: “For example, thumbnail images SG1c and SG21c to SG23c for comparison may be displayed in the positions of the first thumbnail image SG1 and the second thumbnail images SG21 to SG23 illustrated in FIG. 26(a) so as to replace the first thumbnail image SG1 and the second thumbnail images SG21 to SG23”. The images for comparison as taught to represent the differences produced by the difference calculations: “the “thumbnail image SG1c for comparison” reflecting the difference emphasis value DFS1” ([0317]). These comparison images are said to replace the thumbnail images in Fig 26(a), and Fig. 26(a) is described as having similar functions to the display screen 17(b): “FIG. 26(a) illustrates a display screen having a similar function to that of FIG. 17(b)” ([0312]). Fig. 17(b) describes a thumbnail display method which displays the thumbnail as a dynamic image (moving image) for moving image comparison: “In a thumbnail display method (1), the display unit 34 performs processing to play back a dynamic image corresponding to a thumbnail image for moving image comparison. FIG. 17 is a schematic diagram illustrating the thumbnail display method (1)” ([0219-2020])).
The combination of SHIMAMURA, Wagner, and Miller does not expressly disclose performing gradation conversion processing on the emphasis processing images.
However, Miyamoto teaches using gradation processing on images ([0026]: “and gradation conversion processing is performed for the subtraction image so that the contrast of the region based on the contrast-agent injection region is increased”).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of SHIMAMURA, Wagner, and Miller’s emphasis processing device to include Miyamoto’s gradation conversion processing because such a modification is taught, suggested, or motivated by the art. More specifically, the motivation to modify the combination of SHIMAMURA, Wagner, and Miller to include Miyamoto’s gradation conversion processing is expressly provided by Miyamoto, stating that “gradation conversion processing is performed for the subtraction image so that the contrast of the region based on the contrast-agent injection region is increased” ([0026]). Since the combination of SHIMAMURA, Wagner, and Miller’s emphasis processing device uses contrast agents to detect motion, increased contrast would yield beneficial results for their process. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the combination of SHIMAMURA, Wagner, and Miller’s emphasis processing device to include Miyamoto’s gradation conversion processing with the motivation of improving the contrast of the images. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of improved image contrast.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Numbu (US 20120163534 A1) teaches motion of an object in the body can be described using the difference values between frames.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEFANO A DARDANO whose telephone number is (703)756-4543. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11:00 - 7:00.
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, Greg Morse can be reached at (571) 272-3838. 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.
/STEFANO ANTHONY DARDANO/Examiner, Art Unit 2663
/GREGORY A MORSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2698