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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed on 5 September, 2023.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 2 March, 2026 has been entered.
The amendment of claims 1, 3, and 5 has been acknowledged.
The cancellation of claims 2, 4, and 6 has been acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, section “35 U.S.C. § 103”, filed 2 March, 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1 - 6 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states on page 9 of the response filed 2 March, 2026 that Russ fails to teach the claim limitations of “wherein noise removal processing is executed on the input signal of the image”, and “the contrast improvement processing is executed on the input signal of the image on which the noise removal processing has been executed”, specifically that Russ provides a different method to the ratios, which are contrary to the claimed invention and would lead one of ordinary skill in the art away from the claimed invention. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Page 10 and 11 of Russ et al (Russ, John. (2010). Extending the unsharp mask image processing filter. infocus Magazine. 4-17. 10.22443/rms.inf.1.62., hereinafter “Russ”) show in Figure 4 the steps of the unsharp filter. These steps include a) the original image, b) the Gaussian blur (used to remove noise from the original image as detailed on page 7 – 9 “Dealing with Noise”), c) the difference between the original and Gaussian blurred image is calculated d) the difference is then added to the original image. Further, Russ describes an alternate process for contrast improvement comprising calculating the ratio of the original image to the blurred copy, and then to multiply this ratio times the original. These steps fully encompass the claim limitations of performing noise removal processing on the input image followed by contrast improvement processing. With respect to the claim that Russ teaches away from the claimed invention, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The method of Russ teaches a series of steps and processes for removing noise from an image, then performing contrast improvement on the image. This series of steps when performed in conjunction with Japanese Patent Publication No. 2020/065614A Masahiro et al (Employed using the provided machine translation) distinctly teach all claim limitations of the claimed invention. As both of these arts pertain to image processing of X-ray images (See ¶ 1 of Masahiro and Figure 4 of Russ) they are understood to be in the same field of endeavor and do not teach away from one another in such a way as to bar one skilled in the art from combining these methods.
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: “an image generation apparatus configured to” and “a radiation image processing apparatus configured to”, in claim 5.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid 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
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent Publication No. 2020/065614A Masahiro et al (Employed using the provided machine translation) in view of Russ et al (Russ, John. (2010). Extending the unsharp mask image processing filter. infocus Magazine. 4-17. 10.22443/rms.inf.1.62., hereinafter “Russ”).
Regarding claim 1, Masahiro teaches a radiation image processing apparatus for executing image processing on an image obtained by emitting radiation to an object (¶ 1: Radiation image processing system, image processing method, and program), the radiation image processing apparatus comprising:
a calculation device (¶ 105: Alternatively, the processor included in the computer may read and execute the program code stored in the storage unit or the storage medium.);
a storage device connected to the calculation device (¶ 105: Alternatively, the processor included in the computer may read and execute the program code stored in the storage unit or the storage medium.); and
an interface connected to the calculation device (¶ 32: The input unit 116 is a user interface for the user to set image acquisition conditions and the like.), wherein
the radiation image processing apparatus
acquires an input signal of the image (Masahiro ¶ 28: The detector control unit 112 is electrically connected to the X-ray detector 111, acquires the transmission image data by controlling the X-ray detector 111, and inputs the transmission image data to the image processing unit 115.), and
executes contrast improvement processing on the input signal of the image to improve a contrast of the image (¶ 7: Therefore, it is desired to realize an image processing technique that relatively improves the visibility of the procedural device by reducing the vertebral bodies and the like reflected in the transmission image.), and
the contrast improvement processing includes
processing of extracting a low-frequency component of the input signal of the image to generate a first signal of the image (¶ 46: The low frequency component extraction unit 201 of the image processing unit 115 extracts the low frequency component image Iml (x, y) (step S302), and inputs the low frequency component image Iml (x, y) to the division processing unit 202.),
processing of dividing the input signal of the image by the first signal of the image to generate a second signal of the image (Masahiro ¶ 48: The division processing unit 203 of the image processing unit 115 divides the transmission image Im(x, y) by the low-frequency component image Iml (x, y) to obtain the transmission image Id (x as shown in Expression (7).),
processing of executing non-linear processing on the second signal of the image to generate a third signal of the image (¶ 90: The low-frequency component extraction unit 903 can be realized by using a two-dimensional low-pass filter, like the low-frequency component extraction unit 201. The number of taps (filter length) and the pass frequency characteristic of the low frequency component extraction unit 903 may be determined so as to match the frequency characteristic of the halo to be suppressed, or experimentally while confirming the appearance of the halo.), and
processing of outputting an output signal of the image (¶ 96: The halo reduction unit 601 outputs the processed transmission image Id (x, y) to the display unit 117)
Masahiro does not explicitly teach multiplying the input signal of the image by the third signal of the image; and wherein noise removal processing is executed on the input signal of the image, and the contrast improvement processing is executed on the input signal of the image on which the noise removal processing has been executed.
However, Russ does teach multiplying the input signal of the image by the third signal of the image (Page 10, Figure 5c: Multiplying the ratio of the original to the blurred image times the original image.); and wherein
noise removal processing is executed on the input signal of the image (Page 9: ¶ 2: A more general version of the unsharp mask is the Difference of Gaussians (DoG) filter. Instead of subtracting a blurred copy of the image from the original, the difference between two Gaussian blurred copies is used to extract the significant details. The blurred copy with the smaller standard deviation eliminates or reduces the speckle noise in the image, while the larger standard deviation (typically 3 to 5 times larger than the first) eliminates both the noise and the details. The difference is then Just the desired edge and detail information, as shown in Figure 3.), and
the contrast improvement processing is executed on the input signal of the image on which the noise removal processing has been executed (Figure 4: The same steps shown in fig. 1 applied to the contrast-reversed image; a) original; b) Gaussian blur; c) difference; d) sum of (c) and (d); e) contrast reversal of (d), for comparison to fig. 1 ; Page 11 ¶ 1 - 2: Figure 4 illustrates this by carrying out the same sequence of operations - subtracting the Gaussian blur and adding the difference to the original as applied in Figure 1, but doing so to the contrast reversed image and then reversing the contrast at the end. The correct procedure, arising from the fact that detail is noticed based on the local percentage change in brightness, is to calculate the ratio of the original image to the blurred copy, and then to multiply this ratio times the original.; Examiner’s note: It is described in Russ a process of reducing noise on the original digital images. After describing a method of noise reduction the paper describes the process of contrast improvement on these images. It is understood by the examiner that the description of noise reduction preceding the description of contrast improvement details a step of performing the noise reduction on the images before the subsequent contrast adjustment.).
Masahiro and Russ are considered to be analogous art as both pertain to image processing of X-ray images. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the radiation image processing system (as taught by Masahiro) and the method of extending the unsharp image processing filter (as taught by Russ) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation for this combination of references would be Russ uses the ratios of images to significantly increase the visibility of details in the bright regions of the nebula. (See Page 13).
This motivation for the combination of Masahiro and Russ is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 has been analyzed with regard to respective claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 has been analyzed with regard to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above as well as in accordance with Masahiro’s further teaching on:
an image generation apparatus (¶ 27: The X-ray detector 111 is arranged so as to face the X-ray tube 102 with the diaphragm 105, the X-ray compensation filter 106, and the table 109 interposed therebetween, and functions as an image generation unit.)
a radiation image processing apparatus (¶ 28: The detector control unit 112 is electrically connected to the X-ray detector 111, acquires the transmission image data by controlling the X-ray detector 111, and inputs the transmission image data to the image processing unit 115.).
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 ANDREW JONES whose telephone number is (703)756-4573. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00 EST, off Every Other Friday.
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, Matthew Bella can be reached at (571) 272-7778. 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.
/ANDREW B. JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 2667
/MATTHEW C BELLA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2667
Prosecution Insights