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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/12/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 10, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larson in view of Abdolell [US 2023/0071400 A1].
Regarding claim 1, Larson discloses a medical image processing apparatus (CT device 100 (Fig. 1)) including a processor that performs a method to perform an image quality adjusting function (one or more computers may be installed within, or operatively associated with the CT scanning system, the computer may include a processing unit (paragraph [0125])), the method comprising:
(a) receiving image data and image quality data corresponding to an image quality of a medical image represented by the image data (receiving input for a target image quality parameter (paragraph [0022]); method for determining a size specific radiation dose estimate (SSDE) for a patient in a computed tomography (CT) scan, using a scanner, a water phantom is scanned, and a step of estimating DW (patient water equivalent diameter) may include scanning a patient with a scout scan, and creating a topogram with the scout scan (paragraph [0013]); alternatively, or in addition, the step of estimating the patient size DW may be accomplished by: scanning the patient with a scout scan to acquire the patient’s thickness TW; and using TW to cross-reference corresponding DW from the database (paragraph [0015]));
(b) calculating an image feature value with respect to the image quality data (calculating a SSDE (size specific radiation dose estimate, determined based on target image quality parameters and scanner parameters (paragraph [0013])) for the range of acceptable image quality values (paragraph [0022])); and
(c) determining adjustment parameters related to the image quality data received in (a) by using data associating (c1) the adjustment parameters related to the image quality with (c2) the image feature value (recommending specific scan parameters, including at least one of kV, mA and dose modulation settings to achieve the input image quality (paragraph [0022]); SSDE (determined based on target image quality parameters and scanner parameters (paragraph [0013]) is calculated for the range of acceptable image quality values (paragraph [0022]), and specific scan parameters are recommended (paragraph [0022])).
Larson does not explicitly teach (d) obtaining discrete data based on the adjustment parameters and the image feature values, however, Abdolell teaches the image quality score being provided as discrete data. The image quality score is determined by providing the model with at least the medical image quality parameter features derived from the medical image and more data values in the prediction of the image quality score which is discrete data. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Larson in which the receiving, calculating, and determining steps are completed, to additionally use the obtaining step of Abdolell in which the data acquired from Larson would be used to obtain discrete data. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Larson in this manner in order to further analyze the determined data to find discrete data. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art, such as an individual with a basic degree in electrical engineering could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the Examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Larson discloses wherein the image quality data received in (a) is DICOM image data including DICOM information (retrieving data from DICOM header information (paragraph [0021])).
Regarding claim 3, Larson discloses wherein the image feature value calculated in (b) and the DICOM information are used to determine the adjustment parameters suitable for the image quality data in (c) (image feature value (SSDE (paragraph [0022]) and DICOM information (paragraph [0021]) used to determine adjustment parameters (paragraph [0022])).
Regarding claim 10, Larson discloses wherein the method further comprises receiving a constraint condition for the adjustment parameters (providing an alert if the expected image quality falls outside the acceptable image quality parameters (paragraph [0022])).
Regarding claim 15, Larson discloses a diagnostic imaging apparatus (CT device 100 (Fig. 1)) including a processor that performs a method to perform an image quality adjusting function (one or more computers may be installed within, or operatively associated with the CT scanning system, the computer may include a processing unit (paragraph [0125])), the method comprising:
- acquiring measurement data and using the measurement data to generate image data for an image (CT device 100 includes X-ray source 102 and X-ray detector 106 (paragraph [0056]) for acquiring the measurement data for generating the image data);
- receiving, based on the image data, image quality data corresponding to an image quality of a medical image (receiving input for a target image quality parameter (paragraph [0022]); method for determining a size specific radiation dose estimate (SSDE) for a patient in a computed tomography (CT) scan, using a scanner, a water phantom is scanned, and a step of estimating DW (patient water equivalent diameter) may include scanning a patient with a scout scan, and creating a topogram with the scout scan (paragraph [0013]); alternatively, or in addition, the step of estimating the patient size DW may be accomplished by: scanning the patient with a scout scan to acquire the patient’s thickness TW; and using TW to cross-reference corresponding DW from the database (paragraph [0015])),
- calculating an image feature value with respect to the image data and the image quality data (calculating a SSDE (size specific radiation dose estimate, determined based on target image quality parameters and scanner parameters (paragraph [0013])) for the range of acceptable image quality values (paragraph [0022])); and
- determining adjustment parameters related to the image data and the image quality data, by using data associating (c1) the adjustment parameters suitable for the image data and the image quality with (c2) the image feature value (recommending specific scan parameters, including at least one of kV, mA and dose modulation settings to achieve the input image quality (paragraph [0022]); SSDE (determined based on target image quality parameters and scanner parameters (paragraph [0013]) is calculated for the range of acceptable image quality values (paragraph [0022]), and specific scan parameters are recommended (paragraph [0022])).
Regarding claim 16, Larson discloses wherein the diagnostic imaging apparatus is any of an MRI apparatus, a CT apparatus, and an ultrasound imaging apparatus (CT device (paragraph [0056])).
Regarding claim 17, Larson discloses a medical image processing method comprising:
(a) receiving image data and image quality data corresponding to an image quality of a medical image represented by the image data (receiving input for a target image quality parameter (paragraph [0022]); method for determining a size specific radiation dose estimate (SSDE) for a patient in a computed tomography (CT) scan, using a scanner, a water phantom is scanned, and a step of estimating DW (patient water equivalent diameter) may include scanning a patient with a scout scan, and creating a topogram with the scout scan (paragraph [0013]); alternatively, or in addition, the step of estimating the patient size DW may be accomplished by: scanning the patient with a scout scan to acquire the patient’s thickness TW; and using TW to cross-reference corresponding DW from the database (paragraph [0015])),
(b) calculating an image feature value with respect to the image data and the image quality data (calculating a SSDE (size specific radiation dose estimate, determined based on target image quality parameters and scanner parameters (paragraph [0013])) for the range of acceptable image quality values (paragraph [0022])); and
(c) determining adjustment parameters related to the image data and the image quality data received in (a), by using data associating (c1) the adjustment parameters related to the image data and the image quality with (c2) the image feature value (recommending specific scan parameters, including at least one of kV, mA and dose modulation settings to achieve the input image quality (paragraph [0022]); SSDE (determined based on target image quality parameters and scanner parameters (paragraph [0013]) is calculated for the range of acceptable image quality values (paragraph [0022]), and specific scan parameters are recommended (paragraph [0022])).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-9, 11, 12, 18 and 19 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4, the cited prior art fails to disclose or suggest Applicant's medical image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises selecting particular image data that is closest to the image data, from an image database.
Regarding claim 5, the cited prior art fails to disclose or suggest Applicant's medical image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises selecting multiple candidate images, from multiple images contained in an image database, and receiving one or more images selected from among the multiple candidate images.
Regarding claim 6, the cited prior art fails to disclose or suggest Applicant's medical image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprising:
(i) presenting multiple candidate images included in one group among multiple images contained in an image database; and
(ii) after receiving user's selection of a candidate image from the multiple candidate images, presenting another multiple images included in a subordinate group at a level lower than the one group; and
(iii) after (ii) receiving another user's selection of an image.
Regarding claim 7, the cited prior art fails to disclose or suggest Applicant's medical image processing apparatus according to claim 1, the image feature values includes at least one of SNR (signal-to-noise ratio), PSNR (Peak Signal to Noise Ratio), SSIM (Structural Similarity), CNR (Contrast to Noise Ratio), MSE (Mean Squared Error), and sharpness.
Claims 8 and 9 depend from claim 7.
Regarding claim 11, the cited prior art fails to disclose or suggest Applicant's medical image processing apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the method further comprises extracting from data contained in an image database, specific image data meeting the constraint condition, and presenting the extracted image data.
Regarding claim 12, the cited prior art fails to disclose or suggest Applicant's medical image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises presenting the virtual image-quality images, which are linked with the adjustment parameters, along with the adjustment parameters.
Regarding claim 18, the cited prior art fails to disclose or suggest Applicant's medical image processing method according to claim 17, further comprising:
- selecting and presenting a group of images from an image database;
- receiving user's selection regarding the group of images;
- selecting and presenting multiple images included in the group of images, or a subordinate group; and
- receiving another user's selection regarding the multiple images or the subordinate group, wherein
- an image obtained by a final user's selection is received as the image quality data.
Claim 19 depends from claim 18.
Conclusion
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 Amandeep Saini whose telephone number is (571)272-3382. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8AM-4PM).
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.
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.
/AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights