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
This Office action is responsive to Applicant’s AMENDMENT, filed October 28, 2025. Claims 1-12 and 15-19 are pending.
Response to Arguments
In view of Applicant’s amendment to the title of the invention (AMENDMENT, page 2), the objection to the title as set forth in the prior Office action dated July 30, 2025, page 2, is withdrawn.
In response to the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA sixth paragraph), and rejection of claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) (pre-AIA first and second paragraphs) as set forth in the prior Office action, pages 2-8, Applicant has amended the claims so that the limitations are no longer recited in means-plus-function (wherein “means” is replaced by generic placeholder “unit”) language. Therefore, the claim limitations no longer invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), and thus the above claim interpretation and claim rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments in response to the rejection of claims 1-3, 10, 13 and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as set forth in the prior Office action, pages 9-12, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the above claim rejection, Applicant states (AMENDMENT, page 10):
Applicant respectfully submits that the cited art does not disclose or suggest aspects of a medical image processing apparatus including a processor that performs a method … method comprising: … calculating an image feature value with respect to the image data and the image quality data; and (c) determining adjustment parameters related to the image data and the image quality data by using data associating (c1) the adjustment parameters related to the image data and the image quality with (c2) the image feature value.
Specifically in reference to the cited prior art (International Application Publication WO 2013/049818 A1 (hereinafter “Larson”), Applicant states (AMENDMENT, pages 12-13):
However, Applicant does not find suggestion in Larson of … calculating an image feature value with respect to the image data and the image quality data; 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
Applicant respectfully submits that the cited art, even when considered along with common sense and common knowledge to one skilled in the art, simply does NOT render unpatentable the aforementioned aspects of amended claim 1 and that therefore each of independent claim 1 and any claims depending therefrom is allowable over the cited art.
Likewise, Applicant does find suggestion in the cited art of … calculating an image feature value with respect to the image data and the image quality data; 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 …, and therefore each of independent claim 15 and any claims depending therefrom is submitted to be allowable over the cited art.
Similarly, Applicant does find suggestion in the cited art of … calculating an image feature value with respect to the image data and the image quality data; 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 …, and therefore each of independent claim 17 and any claims depending therefrom is submitted to be allowable over the cited art. (Emphasis by Applicant)
Contrary to Applicant’s arguments, Larson does suggest calculating an image feature value with respect to the image data and the image quality data, and determining adjustment parameters related to the image data and the image quality data, by using data associating the adjustment parameters related to the image data and the image quality with the image feature value. In Larson’s 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]). 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]).
Therefore, Applicant’s amendments to the claims and accompanying arguments are not deemed sufficient to overcome the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 10 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Larson.
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 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])).
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, wherein the method further comprises obtaining discrete data based on the adjustment parameters and the image feature values.
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
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 THOMAS D LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-7436. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached at 571-270-5254. 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.
/THOMAS D LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683