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
Applicant’s response, filed 11 November 2025, to the last office action has been entered and made of record.
In response to the amendments to the specification and claims, they are acknowledged, supported by the original disclosure, and no new matter is added.
In response to the amendments to the specification, the amended language has overcome the objection to the drawings for not including the “18” reference sign mentioned in the description, of the previous Office action, and the respective objection has been withdrawn.
In response to the amendments to the drawings, see p. 11 of Applicant’s reply, replacement sheets including amendments to Figs. 1, 4 and 5 are indicated to be attached; however the indicated drawing replacement sheets are presently missing from the record. The respective objections to the drawings of the previous Office action are currently maintained.
In response to the amendments to the claims, specifically addressing the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b) / (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, of the previous Office action, the amended language has overcome the respective rejection, and the rejection has been withdrawn.
Amendments to claims 2, 4, and 7-10 have necessitated an updated ground of rejection over the applied prior art. Please see below for the updated interpretations and rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments on p. 13 of Applicant’s reply, that Shecter fails to disclose or suggest, “creating intermediate images from a re-binning of columns of the projection images”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner notes the claims are treated with their broadest reasonable interpretations consistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ871 (CCPA 1981).
Brendel is relied upon to teach a method for acquiring projection data from a computed tomographic (CT) imaging system to be processed with a motion compensated iterative reconstruction algorithm, where initial and current image data is determined and stored from measured projection data received from the imaging system (see Brendel [0017], [0026], and [0036]-[0037]), and final image data is calculated based on iterative resampling, forward projecting the initial and current image data to produce forward projection data which are compared with measured projection data to generate updated projections, which are back projected to generate partial update image data to be resampled and added to current image data to produce new current image data (see Brendel [0027]-[0033] and [0036]-[0047]). Notably, Brendel teaches determining initial and current image data in the motion compensated iterative reconstruction method for calculating the final image data (see Brendel [0026] and [0036]-[0037]).
Shecter is relied upon to teach in a comparable tomographic apparatus, such as a CT scanner, which generates output signals indicative radiation received along a plurality of rays, the known technique of performing height and transverse rebinning of received projection data from the detector of the CT scanner, where the coordinates of interpolated readings is defined as the location at which the reading intersects the isocenter corresponding to a central column, to form plurality of projection images with equidistant parallel views (see Shecter [0041]-[0050]).
The combined teachings of the Brendel and Shecter would suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art to process the received projection data of Brendel’s motion compensated iterative reconstruction algorithm with height and transverse rebinning process, as taught by Shecter, to generate plurality of projection images with equidistant parallel views, and that the coordinates of interpolated readings is defined as the location at which the reading intersects the isocenter corresponding to a central column.
As Brendel’s initial and current image data is formed from the received projection data, the combined teachings where the received projection data is processed with Shecter’s height and transverse rebinning process suggests that the initial and current image data is formed from the height and transverse rebinned projection data.
Thus, the combined cited prior art suggested teaching for initial and current image data is formed from the height and transverse rebinned projection data provides for the broadest reasonable interpretation of “creating intermediate images from a re-binning of columns of the projection images”.
Applicant further presents arguments on p. 14 of Applicant’s reply, that Shecter fails to disclose or suggest “calculating a column image position at which the voxel would be mapped in the intermediate image at the reference voxel position” and “ascertaining a changed movement state of the voxel based on the column image position” as consequence of Shecter failing to disclose or suggest “creating intermediate images from a re-binning of columns of the projection images”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussed above, the combined teachings of Brendel and Shecter are relied upon to suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art to process the received projection data of Brendel’s motion compensated iterative reconstruction algorithm with height and transverse rebinning to generate plurality of projection images with equidistant parallel views, as taught by Shecter, and that the coordinates of interpolated readings is defined as the location at which the reading intersects the isocenter corresponding to a central column.
In particular, Brendel further teaches that the current image data is resampled into sets of image data corresponding to one of the motion states, and resulting voxels have a geometry and position on a regular grid as that of the initial image data (see Brendel [0027] and [0038]), and that a difference signal between concatenated projection data and measured projection data is determined, which the difference signal is used to generate updated projection data (see Brendel [0029] and [0041]-[0042]).
Shecter is also noted to teach that the height rebinner performs separate height interpolation for each focal spot and detector column so as to generate an output raster of one dimensionally interpolated values for each detector column (see Shecter [0041]-[0042] and [0047]), where the z-coordinate of interpolated readings is defined as the location at which the reading intersects the isocenter (see Shecter [0043]-[0046]).
As the combined teachings suggests to form the initial and current image data from the height and transverse rebinned projection data which generates interpolated values for detector column positions, corresponding column image positions are suggested to be calculated in the resampled image data with corresponding motion states of Brendel’s teachings, and the difference signal between subsequently concatenated projection data and measured projection data is determined based on the suggested calculated column image positions.
Thus, the combined cited prior art suggested teaching for calculating corresponding column image positions in the resampled image data with corresponding motion states provides for the broadest reasonable interpretation of “calculating a column image position at which the voxel would be mapped in the intermediate image at the reference voxel position”, and the determination of the difference signal between subsequently concatenated projection data and measured projection data based on the suggested calculated column image positions provides for the broadest reasonable interpretation of “ascertaining a changed movement state of the voxel based on the column image position”.
Applicant’s presented arguments towards claims 4 and 18 and claims 7 and 19 refers to the arguments towards subject matter of claims 1 and 16 discussed above. Examiner similarly refers to the above discussion regarding the subject matter of claims 1 and 16 in view of the cited prior art teachings.
Drawings
Figures 1, 4, and 5 are objected to as depicting a block diagram without “readily identifiable” descriptors of each block, as required by 37 CFR 1.84(n). Rule 84(n) requires “labeled representations” of graphical symbols, such as blocks; and any that are “not universally recognized may be used, subject to approval by the Office, if they are not likely to be confused with existing conventional symbols, and if they are readily identifiable.”
In the case of Figures 1, 4, and 5, the blocks are not readily identifiable per se and therefore require the insertion of text that identifies the function of that block. That is, each vacant block should be provided with a corresponding label identifying its function or purpose.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “re-binning unit”, “reconstruction unit”, “movement module”, “positioning module”, “mapping module”, “adoption module”, “beam simulation module”, “movement simulation module”, and “simulation adoption module” in claims 10-13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brendel et al. (US 2016/0210741), herein Brendel in view of Shecter (US 2008/0247507).
Regarding claim 1, Brendel discloses a method for movement compensation during CT reconstruction, the method comprising:
providing projection images of a CT scan (see Brendel [0017], [0026], and [0036], where measured projection data is received from an imaging system such as a computed tomography (CT) scanner);
creating intermediate images (see Brendel [0026] and [0037], where initial and current image data is determined and stored); and
calculating slice images via back projection of the intermediate images onto voxels of the slice images (see Brendel [0027]-[0033] and [0036]-[0047], where final image data is calculated based on iterative resampling, forward projecting the initial and current image data to produce forward projection data which are compared with measured projection data to generate update projection, which are back projected to generate partial update image data to be resampled to be added to current image data to produce new current image data);
wherein for each intermediate image and for each voxel, and based on a movement profile of the voxels during acquisition of the projection images (see Brendel [0019]-[0020], where motion signal is generated based on detected motion during an imaging acquisition, and a set of motion vector fields based on the motion signal is determined for a set of motion states; see Brendel [0027] and [0037] initial (current) image data and a set of MVFs for corresponding set of motion states are obtained and images are resampled and represented on a regular grid of voxels, same as the current image), the method includes
selecting an initial movement state based on the intermediate image (see Brendel [0027] and [0038], where image data and a set of MVFs for corresponding set of motion states are obtained and images are resampled and represented on a regular grid of voxels, same as the current image),
calculating a reference voxel position of the voxel from an original voxel position of the voxel and from the movement profile relative to the initial movement state (see Brendel [0027] and [0038], where the current image data is resampled into sets of image data corresponding to one of the motion states, and resulting voxels have a geometry and position on a regular grid as that of the initial image data),
ascertaining a changed movement state of the voxel (see Brendel [0029] and [0041]-[0042], where a difference signal between concatenated projection data and measured projection data is determined; and update projection data is generated based on the difference signal),
calculating a changed voxel position of the voxel from the original voxel position and the movement profile relative to the changed movement state (see Brendel [0029] and [0042]-[0043], where update projection data is generated based on the difference signal, and update projection data are grouped based on the set of motion states),
calculating a changed image position at which the voxel would be mapped in the intermediate image at the changed voxel position (see Brendel [0029] and [0042]-[0044], where update projection data is grouped based on the set of motion states), and
using an image value of the intermediate image at the changed image position for the back projection (see Brendel [0030] and [0042]-[0044], where the updated projection data is back projected).
Brendel does not explicitly disclose that creating intermediate images is from a re-binning of columns of the projection images, calculating a column image position at which the voxel would be mapped in the intermediate image at the reference voxel position, and that ascertaining a changed movement state of the voxel is based on the column image position.
Shecter teaches in a related and pertinent tomographic apparatus which generates output signals indicative radiation received along a plurality of rays (see Shecter Abstract), where a multi-slice detector includes multiple rows or slices of detector elements extending in the z-direction and multiple columns of detector elements extending in the transverse direction (see Shecter [0034]), where the geometry of the x-ray beam in the y-z plane for central rays which pass through the isocenter and are received by a central column of the multi-row detector (see Shecter [0041]), and a height rebinner performs separate height interpolation for each focal spot and detector column so as to generate an output raster of one dimensionally interpolated values for each detector column (see Shecter [0041]-[0042] and [0047]), where the z-coordinate of interpolated readings is defined as the location at which the reading intersects the isocenter (see Shecter [0043]-[0046]), and transverse rebinning is performed on the height interpolated readings to generate a plurality of equidistant parallel views (see Shecter [0049]-[0050]).
At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Shecter to the teachings of Bendel such that the received projection data are processed with height and transverse rebinning to generate plurality of projection images with equidistant parallel views, and that the coordinates of interpolated readings is defined as the location at which the reading intersects the isocenter corresponding to a central column.
This modification is rationalized as a use of a known technique to improve a similar method in the same way
In this instance, Brendel discloses a base method for acquiring projection data from a computed tomographic (CT) imaging system to be processed with a motion compensated iterative reconstruction algorithm.
Shecter teaches in a comparable tomographic apparatus, such as a CT scanner, which generates output signals indicative radiation received along a plurality of rays, the known technique of performing height and transverse rebinning of received projection data from the detector of the CT scanner, where the coordinates of interpolated readings is defined as the location at which the reading intersects the isocenter corresponding to a central column.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied Shecter’s techniques in the same way to the received projection data of Brendel , and would have predictably resulted in the received projection data being processed with height and transverse rebinning to generate plurality of projection images with equidistant parallel views, and that the coordinates of interpolated readings is defined as the location at which the reading intersects the isocenter corresponding to a central column.
Regarding claim 2, please see the above rejection of claim 1. Brendel and Shecter discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the initial movement state corresponds to a column image position, which lies substantially at a center of the intermediate image (see Shecter [0041], where the geometry of the x-ray beam in the y-z plane for central rays which pass through the isocenter and are received by a central column of the multi-row detector; and see Shecter [0043]-[0046], where the coordinate of interpolated readings is defined as the location at which the reading intersects the isocenter).
Regarding claim 3, please see the above rejection of claim 2. Brendel and Shecter disclose the method as claimed in claim 2, wherein the center corresponds to a column at exactly the center of an image in one of the projection images (see Shecter [0041], where the geometry of the x-ray beam in the y-z plane for central rays which pass through the isocenter and are received by a central column of the multi-row detector; and see Shecter [0043]-[0046], where the coordinate of interpolated readings is defined as the location at which the reading intersects the isocenter).
Regarding claim 5, please see the above rejection of claim 1. Brendel and Shecter disclose the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein for each intermediate image and for each voxel, the method comprises:
calculating a changed column image position at which the voxel would be mapped in the intermediate image at the changed voxel position (see Brendel [0029] and [0042]-[0044], where update projection data is grouped based on the set of motion states; see Shecter [0041] and [0043]-[0046], where the coordinates of interpolated readings is defined as the location at which the reading intersects the isocenter corresponding to a central column);
wherein the ascertaining ascertains the changed movement state of the voxel based on the changed column image position (see Brendel [0029] and [0041]-[0042], where a difference signal between concatenated projection data and measured projection data is determined; and update projection data is generated based on the difference signal; see Shecter [0041] and [0043]-[0046], where the coordinates of interpolated readings is defined as the location at which the reading intersects the isocenter corresponding to a central column).
Regarding claim 6, please see the above rejection of claim 1. Brendel and Shecter disclose the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the creating the intermediate images comprises:
re-binning the columns of the projection images such that, for an intermediate image, columns of the projection images, which have been acquired with parallel X-ray beams respectively in a plane orthogonal to the columns, are used (see Shecter [0041]-[0042] and [0047], where a height rebinner performs separate height interpolation for each focal spot and detector column so as to generate an output raster of one dimensionally interpolated values for each detector column; and see Shecter [0049]-[0050], where transverse rebinning is performed on the height interpolated readings to generate a plurality of equidistant parallel views).
Regarding claim 8, please see the above rejection of claim 1. Brendel and Shecter disclose the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein after calculating the slice images, the method comprises:
reconstructing comparison intermediate images from the slice images based on the movement profile (see Brendel [0027] and [0038], where current image data is re-sampled into a plurality of sets of image data, each corresponding to one of the motion states, and the );
comparing the comparison intermediate images with the intermediate images (see Brendel [0029] and [0041], where the concatenated projection data is compared with the measured projection data and a difference signal is determined);
creating revised slice images based on the comparing (see Brendel [0029]-[0030] and [0042]-[0046], where the update projection data is generated based on the difference signal and used to form sets of updated projection data that are back projected to generate partial update image data and re-sampled into the reference motion state to be added to the current image data to produce new current image data); and
iteratively repeating the reconstructing, the comparing, and the creating revised slice images with last-created slice images (see Brendel [0033] and [0047], where the acts for the motion compensated iterative reconstruction are repeated until a stopping criteria is satisfied).
Regarding claim 9, please see the above rejection of claim 8. Brendel and Shecter disclose the method as claimed in claim 8, wherein during reconstructing of the comparison intermediate images, for each image point of each comparison intermediate image, the image point of the comparison intermediate image is ascertained by
calculating a beam through image voxels starting from the image point of the comparison intermediate image (see Brendel [0027] and [0038]-[0039], where current image data are resampled into sets of image data corresponding to one of the motion states, where the resulting voxels have a geometry and position on a regular grid of the initial image, and are forward projected to create a plurality of sets of forward projected data, each set corresponding to a particular motion state, where the forward projection of the current image data is understood to be equivalent to simulating and capturing the projection data of an x-ray beam from the current image data),
ascertaining movement data for a movement state corresponding to a column image position in the comparison intermediate image from the movement profile (see Brendel [0027] and [0038]-[0039], where current image data are resampled into sets of image data corresponding to one of the motion states, where the resulting voxels have a geometry and position on a regular grid of the initial image, and are forward projected to create a plurality of sets of forward projected data, each set corresponding to a particular motion state; see Shecter [0041] and [0043]-[0046], where the coordinates of interpolated readings is defined as the location at which the reading intersects the isocenter corresponding to a central column; where the combined teachings suggest that the MVF for the motion states are determined and applied to the column positions of the current image data when resampling the current image data to the motion states),
displacing positions of the beam and the image voxels relative to each other according to the movement data of the movement profile relating to the movement state (see Brendel [0027] and [0038]-[0039], where current image data are resampled into sets of image data corresponding to one of the motion states, where the resulting voxels have a geometry and position on a regular grid of the initial image, and are forward projected to create a plurality of sets of forward projected data, each set corresponding to a particular motion state, where the forward projection of the resampled current image data corresponding to different motion states is understood to be equivalent to simulating and capturing the projection data of an x-ray beam from the current image data with the displacement according to the MVFs of the different motion states),
accumulating values of the image voxels along the beam with a relative displacement of the beam and the image voxels in an accumulated value (see Brendel [0028] and [0040], where the forward projected data are concatenated and combined resulting in concatenated projection data), and
adopting the accumulated values for the column image position in the comparison intermediate image (see Brendel [0028]-[0029] and [0040]-[0041], where the concatenated projection data is compared with the measured projection data).
Regarding claim 10, it recites a system performing the method of claim 1. Brendel and Shecter teach a system performing the method of claim 1 (see Brendel [0017]-[0024], where an imaging system is disclosed). Please see above for detailed claim analysis, with the exception to the following further limitations:
a data interface (see Brendel [0024] and [0026], the reconstructor includes one or more computer processors, and the reconstructor receives the measured projection data);
a re-binning unit, reconstruction unit, movement module, positioning module, mapping module, adoption module, beam simulation module, movement simulation module, and simulation adoption module (see Brendel Fig. 1, [0017]-[0024] and [0048], where the reconstructer includes one or more computer processors to perform the disclosed teachings, and that computer readable instructions, encoded or embedded on computer readable storage medium, which, when executed by a computer processors, cause the processors to carry out the described acts).
Please see the above rejection for claim 1, as the rationale to combine the teachings of Brendel and Shecter are similar, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding claim 11, see above rejection for claim 10. It is a system claim reciting similar subject matter as claim 9. Please see above claim 9 for detailed claim analysis as the limitations of claim 11 are similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 12, Brendel and Shecter disclose a control device to control a computed tomography system comprising the system as claimed in claim 10 (see Brendel Fig. 1 and [0024], where a computer system is disclosed to serve as an operator console).
Regarding claim 13, Brendel and Shecter disclose a computed tomography system comprising the control device as claimed in claim 12 (see Brendel Fig. 1 and [0017]-[0024], where a imaging system such as a computed tomography scanner is disclosed to comprise the operating console).
Regarding claim 14, Brendel and Shecter disclose a non-transitory computer program product, having a computer program, which is loadable into a storage device of a control device of a computed tomography system, the computer program having program segments that, when executed at the control device, cause the control device to perform the method as claimed in claim 1 (see Brendel Fig. 1, [0017]-[0024] and [0048], where the reconstructer includes one or more computer processors to perform the disclosed teachings, and that computer readable instructions, encoded or embedded on computer readable storage medium, which, when executed by a computer processors, cause the processors to carry out the described acts).
Regarding claim 15, Brendel and Shecter disclose a non-transitory computer-readable medium including program segments that, when executed by at least one processor at a system, cause the system to perform the method as claimed in claim 1 (see Brendel Fig. 1, [0017]-[0024] and [0048], where the reconstructer includes one or more computer processors to perform the disclosed teachings, and that computer readable instructions, encoded or embedded on computer readable storage medium, which, when executed by a computer processors, cause the processors to carry out the described acts).
Regarding claim 16, it recites a system performing the method of claim 1. Brendel and Shecter teach a system performing the method of claim 1 (see Brendel [0017]-[0024], where an imaging system is disclosed). Please see above for detailed claim analysis, with the exception to the following further limitations:
a data interface (see Brendel [0024] and [0026], the reconstructor includes one or more computer processors, and the reconstructor receives the measured projection data)
at least one processor configured to execute computer- readable instructions to cause the system to perform the disclosed teachings (see Brendel Fig. 1, [0017]-[0024] and [0048], where the reconstructer includes one or more computer processors to perform the disclosed teachings, and that computer readable instructions, encoded or embedded on computer readable storage medium, which, when executed by a computer processors, cause the processors to carry out the described acts)
Please see the above rejection for claim 1, as the rationale to combine the teachings of Brendel and Shecter are similar, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding claim 17, please see the above rejection of claim 2. Brendel and Shecter disclose the method of claim 2, wherein an initial movement state is selected for each intermediate image (see Brendel [0027] and [0038], where image data and a set of MVFs for corresponding set of motion states are obtained and images are resampled and represented on a regular grid of voxels, same as the current image).
Regarding claim 20, please see the above rejection of claim 9. Brendel and Shecter disclose the method of claim 9, wherein the beam is moved according to the movement data (see Brendel [0027] and [0038]-[0039], where current image data are resampled into sets of image data corresponding to one of the motion states, where the resulting voxels have a geometry and position on a regular grid of the initial image, and are forward projected to create a plurality of sets of forward projected data, each set corresponding to a particular motion state, where the forward projection of the resampled current image data corresponding to different motion states is understood to be equivalent to simulating and capturing the projection data of an x-ray beam from the current image data with the displacement according to the MVFs of the different motion states).
Claims 4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brendel and Shecter as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tang et al. (“A fully four-dimensional, iterative motion estimation and compensation method for cardiac CT”), herein Tang.
Regarding claim 4, please see the above rejection of claim 1. Brendel and Shecter disclose the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein
during the back projection of the intermediate images, for a number of the intermediate images, a selected movement data is selected from a movement profile for the initial movement state (see Brendel [0030] and [0042]-[0044], where updated projection data, corresponding to sets of motion states, is back projected; suggesting that a corresponding motion state of the sets of motion states is used in back projecting a corresponding updated projection data)
While Brendel teaches that the sets of motion vector fields (MVFs) are determined based on the motion signal for one or more subsets of motion states and maps a position of tissue between images or slices of the volumetric image data to describe the motion of the tissue from one image to another image, and correspond to motion states (see Brendel [0020])); Brendel and Shecter do not explicitly disclose that movement data is selected from a movement profile at least for an earlier and at least one later movement state, and the method includes calculating interpolated movement data based on interpolating, from the selected movement data, the selected movement data relating to the changed movement state, and wherein the calculating a changed voxel position calculates the changed voxel position of the voxel based on the interpolated movement data relating to the changed movement state.
Tang teaches in a related and pertinent motion estimation and motion-compensated reconstruction method (see Tang Abstract), where the motion estimation obtains 4D motion vector fields (MVFs), where the deformation vector of the MVF is defined from a cardiac reference motion phase to another motion phase, based on a deformation model between reference images at a reference motion phase and images for another motion phase, in which the deformation parameters are estimated by minimizing a regularized weighted least-squared difference cost function (see Tang sect. II.A. ME algorithm), and in the motion compensated reconstruction process, MVFs are estimated from motion phases to arbitrary, continuous motion phases, and are obtained by the interpolation of existing MVFs for discrete motion phases (see Tang sect. II.B. MCR algorithm).
At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Tang to the teachings of Bendel and Shecter, such that MVFs can be estimated for continuous motion states based on interpolation of the discrete MVFs, where the discrete MVFs are estimated based on a deformation model between reference images at a reference motion state and images for another motion state.
This modification is rationalized as an application of a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
In this instance, Brendel and Shecter discloses a base method for acquiring projection data from a computed tomographic (CT) imaging system to be processed with a motion compensated iterative reconstruction algorithm, where sets of MVFs are determined based on the motion signal for one or more subsets of motion states and maps a position of tissue between images or slices of the volumetric image data to describe the motion of the tissue from one image to another image, and correspond to motion states.
Tang teaches a known technique of estimating MVFs from motion phases to arbitrary, continuous motion phases by interpolating existing MVFs for discrete motion phases, which the existing MVFs are determined based on a deformation model between reference images at a reference motion phase and images for another motion phase, and the deformation parameters are estimated by minimizing a regularized weighted least-squared difference cost function.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that by applying Tang’s techniques to teachings of Brendel and Shecter would have allowed for motion vector fields for continuous motion states to be estimated based on the interpolation of discrete motion vector fields of corresponding motion states, where the discrete motion vector fields are estimated based on a deformation model between reference images at a reference motion state and images for another motion state, predictably leading to an improved method for estimating continuous motion vector fields for performing the motion compensated iterative reconstruction.
Regarding claim 18, please see the above rejection of claim 4. Brendel, Shecter, and Tang disclose the method of claim 4, wherein the interpolating is based on movement states closest to the changed movement state, and a distance of image positions of the movement states is incorporated by weighting (see Tang sect. II.A.2. Cost function, where the deformation parameters for the deformation model vectors are estimated by minimizing a regularized weighted cost function, which includes weighting factors for spatial smoothness terms).
Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brendel and Shecter as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2021/0012541), herein Lee.
Regarding claim 7, please see the above rejection of claim 1. Brendel and Shecter disclose the method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising:
filtering the intermediate images via at least one of a convolution or a Fourier transform (see Shecter [0057], where a convolver convolves the rebinned readings using a conventional ramp filter ),
Brendel and Shecter do not explicitly disclose when filtering via the convolution, at least one of a filtered intermediate image is calculated via a kernel or an intermediate image is subjected to the Fourier transform in Fourier space and multiplied by an adjusted filter in the Fourier space.
Lee teaches in a related and pertinent method and apparatus is provided to improve the image quality of images generated by analytical reconstruction of a computed tomography (CT) image (see Lee Abstract), where image data can be filtered using the reconstruction kernel, and that reconstruction kernel often is a ramp filter but other variation can be used, such as a Shepp-Logan filter (see Lee [0043]-[0048]).
At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Lee to the teachings of Bendel and Shecter, such that the rebinned projection data can be filtered by convolving the rebinned readings using a kernel of a Shepp-Logan filter.
This modification is rationalized as a use of a known technique to improve a similar method in the same way.
In this instance, Brendel and Shecter discloses a base method for acquiring projection data from a computed tomographic (CT) imaging system to be processed with a motion compensated iterative reconstruction algorithm.
Lee teaches in a comparable method and apparatus for improving the image quality of reconstructed images of a CT, the known technique filtering image data using the reconstruction kernel, and that reconstruction kernel often is a ramp filter but other variation can be used, such as a Shepp-Logan filter.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied Lee’s techniques in the same way to the rebinned projection data of Brendel and Shecter, and would have predictably resulted in the rebinned projection data being filtered by convolving the rebinned readings using a kernel of a filter Shepp-Logan filter.
Regarding claim 19, please see the above rejection of claim 7. Lee discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the kernel is a Shepp-Logan kernel (see Lee [0043]-[0048], where image data can be filtered using the reconstruction kernel including a Shepp-Logan filter).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TIMOTHY WING HO CHOI whose telephone number is (571)270-3814. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 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, VINCENT RUDOLPH can be reached at (571) 272-8243. 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.
/TIMOTHY CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 2671
/VINCENT RUDOLPH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2671