DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendment of October 29, 2025 overcomes the following:
Specification objections
Objections to claims 1 and 15-17
Claim 1 and 12-15 interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph
Applicant has amended claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, and 10-17. Claims 5 and 9 have been canceled. Claim 19 is new. Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 10-19 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on October 29, 2025 with respect to pending claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. The amended claims resulted in changes to the scope and contents that raised new indefiniteness issue(s); therefore, the grounds of rejection are modified accordingly. It is noted that previously applied prior arts are still considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure because they teach similar concepts, as previously set forth in the last Office action (OA).
Regarding independent claim 1, and similar independent claim(s), Applicant asserts that “Jerebko is silent regarding generating a single projection image that includes two regions reconstructed with different slab thicknesses, corresponding to positions within the same cross-sectional plane” (Remarks, Pg. 10-12).
Applicant’s arguments above with respect to “two regions reconstructed with different slab thicknesses, corresponding to positions within the same cross-sectional plane” are understood, but they are not relevant to the claims since these features are not being recited in the claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18 recites “execute each step of an image processing method defined in claim 16” in lines 1-3 of the claim. However, the claimed “an image processing method defined in claim 16” should recite “the image processing method defined in claim 16 in order to clarify the claim language, as previously indicated in the last OA.
Therefore, for examination purposes the claimed “execute each step of an image processing method defined in claim 16” recited in lines 1-3 of the claim will be interpreted as “execute each step of the image processing method defined in claim 16”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 now recites the limitation “obtain a first region in a tomographic image included in a three-dimensional image, and a second region in the tomographic image in the three-dimensional image different from the first region… generate a projection image corresponding to a position of the tomographic image, wherein the projection image includes a region generated using the first slab and a region generated using the second slab” in lines 5-14 of the claim.
However, the claimed “position of the tomographic image” recited in lines 11-12 of the claim is not defined by the claims.
Par. [0032-85] of the specification of this application indicate that “the position of a section of interest, and a slab thickness in projection processing performed on the site of the observation object are obtained… the projection image is an image in which the pixel values of respective pixels at corresponding positions in the images of several slices preceding and succeeding the section of interest are collected (projected) on the section of interest… section of interest is a section at a position designated by the user… performs projection processing based on an adaptively determined slab thickness with respect to the position of a pixel (pixel of interest) to be processed on the section of interest… the anatomical position of the section of interest… corresponding positions in the slice images are collected (projected) on the section of interest… positions in a site included in the region of the observation object… the position of a pixel of interest with respect to the region of an observation object… a position corresponding to an anatomical position”, for example.
Based on paragraphs of the specification above, for examination purposes, the claimed “position of the tomographic image” recited in lines 11-12 of the claim can be interpreted as a “position in a site included in a region of an observation object”, for example. However, it is not clear if the “position in a site included in a region of an observation object” relates to any of the claimed “first region” or “second region” of the “tomographic image” previously recited in lines 5-6 of the claim, or not, for example, because the claimed “position of the tomographic image” recited in lines 11-12 of the claim is not defined by the claims, as indicated above. Additionally, it is not clear if the claimed “region generated using the first slab” and “region generated using the second slab” recited in lines 13-14 of the claim, respectively, encompass embodiments corresponding to any of the claimed “first region in a tomographic image” and “second region in the tomographic image” previously recited in lines 5-7 of the claim, or not, for example.
Therefore, based on above, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claims 2-4, 6-8, 10-14, and 19 are rejected by virtue of being dependent upon rejected base claim 1.
Claim 15 now recites the limitation “obtain a first region in a tomographic image included in a three-dimensional image, and a second region in the tomographic image in the three-dimensional image different from the first region… generate a projection image corresponding to a position of the tomographic image, wherein the projection image includes a region generated using the first slab and a region generated using the second slab” in lines 5-14 of the claim.
However, the claimed “position of the tomographic image” recited in lines 11-12 of the claim is not defined by the claims.
Par. [0032-85] of the specification of this application indicate that “the position of a section of interest, and a slab thickness in projection processing performed on the site of the observation object are obtained… the projection image is an image in which the pixel values of respective pixels at corresponding positions in the images of several slices preceding and succeeding the section of interest are collected (projected) on the section of interest… section of interest is a section at a position designated by the user… performs projection processing based on an adaptively determined slab thickness with respect to the position of a pixel (pixel of interest) to be processed on the section of interest… the anatomical position of the section of interest… corresponding positions in the slice images are collected (projected) on the section of interest… positions in a site included in the region of the observation object… the position of a pixel of interest with respect to the region of an observation object… a position corresponding to an anatomical position”, for example.
Based on paragraphs of the specification above, for examination purposes, the claimed “position of the tomographic image” recited in lines 11-12 of the claim can be interpreted as a “position in a site included in a region of an observation object”, for example. However, it is not clear if the “position in a site included in a region of an observation object” relates to any of the claimed “first region” or “second region” of the “tomographic image” previously recited in lines 5-7 of the claim, or not, for example, because the claimed “position of the tomographic image” recited in lines 11-12 of the claim is not defined by the claims, as indicated above. Additionally, it is not clear if the claimed “region generated using the first slab” and “region generated using the second slab” recited in lines 13-14 of the claim, respectively, encompass embodiments corresponding to any of the claimed “first region in a tomographic image” and “second region in the tomographic image” previously recited in lines 5-7 of the claim, or not, for example.
Therefore, based on above, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 16 now recites the limitation “obtain a first region in a tomographic image included in a three-dimensional image, and a second region in the tomographic image in the three-dimensional image different from the first region… generate a projection image corresponding to a position of the tomographic image, wherein the projection image includes a region generated using the first slab and a region generated using the second slab” in lines 3-11 of the claim.
However, the claimed “position of the tomographic image” recited in lines 9-10 of the claim is not defined by the claims.
Par. [0032-85] of the specification of this application indicate that “the position of a section of interest, and a slab thickness in projection processing performed on the site of the observation object are obtained… the projection image is an image in which the pixel values of respective pixels at corresponding positions in the images of several slices preceding and succeeding the section of interest are collected (projected) on the section of interest… section of interest is a section at a position designated by the user… performs projection processing based on an adaptively determined slab thickness with respect to the position of a pixel (pixel of interest) to be processed on the section of interest… the anatomical position of the section of interest… corresponding positions in the slice images are collected (projected) on the section of interest… positions in a site included in the region of the observation object… the position of a pixel of interest with respect to the region of an observation object… a position corresponding to an anatomical position”, for example.
Based on paragraphs of the specification above, for examination purposes, the claimed “position of the tomographic image” recited in lines 9-10 of the claim can be interpreted as a “position in a site included in a region of an observation object”, for example. However, it is not clear if the “position in a site included in a region of an observation object” relates to any of the claimed “first region” or “second region” of the “tomographic image” previously recited in lines 3-4 of the claim, or not, for example, because the claimed “position of the tomographic image” recited in lines 9-10 of the claim is not defined by the claims, as indicated above. Additionally, it is not clear if the claimed “region generated using the first slab” and “region generated using the second slab” recited in lines 10-11 of the claim, respectively, encompass embodiments corresponding to any of the claimed “first region in a tomographic image” and “second region in the tomographic image” previously recited in lines 3-4 of the claim, or not, for example.
Therefore, based on above, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 18 is rejected by virtue of being dependent upon rejected base claim 16.
Claim 17 now recites the limitation “obtain a first region in a tomographic image included in a three-dimensional image, and a second region in the tomographic image in the three-dimensional image different from the first region… generate a projection image corresponding to a position of the tomographic image, wherein the projection image includes a region generated using the first slab and a region generated using the second slab” in lines 3-11 of the claim.
However, the claimed “position of the tomographic image” recited in lines 9-10 of the claim is not defined by the claims.
Par. [0032-85] of the specification of this application indicate that “the position of a section of interest, and a slab thickness in projection processing performed on the site of the observation object are obtained… the projection image is an image in which the pixel values of respective pixels at corresponding positions in the images of several slices preceding and succeeding the section of interest are collected (projected) on the section of interest… section of interest is a section at a position designated by the user… performs projection processing based on an adaptively determined slab thickness with respect to the position of a pixel (pixel of interest) to be processed on the section of interest… the anatomical position of the section of interest… corresponding positions in the slice images are collected (projected) on the section of interest… positions in a site included in the region of the observation object… the position of a pixel of interest with respect to the region of an observation object… a position corresponding to an anatomical position”, for example.
Based on paragraphs of the specification above, for examination purposes, the claimed “position of the tomographic image” recited in lines 9-10 of the claim can be interpreted as a “position in a site included in a region of an observation object”, for example. However, it is not clear if the “position in a site included in a region of an observation object” relates to any of the claimed “first region” or “second region” of the “tomographic image” previously recited in lines 3-4 of the claim, or not, for example, because the claimed “position of the tomographic image” recited in lines 9-10 of the claim is not defined by the claims, as indicated above. Additionally, it is not clear if the claimed “region generated using the first slab” and “region generated using the second slab” recited in lines 10-11 of the claim, respectively, encompass embodiments corresponding to any of the claimed “first region in a tomographic image” and “second region in the tomographic image” previously recited in lines 3-4 of the claim, or not, for example.
Therefore, based on above, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
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 extension fee 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.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUILLERMO RIVERA-MARTINEZ whose telephone number is 571-272-4979. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8am - 5pm Eastern Time). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Bee can be reached on 571-270-5183. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GUILLERMO M RIVERA-MARTINEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights