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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
The indicated allowability of claims 11-20 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to US 20210128095 (Vaz). Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
Claims 16 and 17 are 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: Limitations pertaining to “first monoenergetic image at the first energy level is generated based on a first linear combination of the first material-density image and the second material-density image.”, in conjunction with other limitations present in claim 16, intervening claims, and the independent claim 11, distinguish over the prior art.
Response to Amendments
Amendments to claims 1-3 and 5-10 overcome the prior art rejections provided in the Final Office Action dated 11/12/2025. However, a new rejection is provided under 35 USC § 103 incorporating US 20210128095 (Vaz). See the rejection section below for specificity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejections of claims 1-3 and 5-10 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendment.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 8, 11, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0000396 A1 (Taguchi) in view of US 20210128095 (Vaz) and US 20160371862 A1 (Silver).
As per claim 1, Taguchi teaches a method for computed tomography (CT) imaging (Taguchi: See below), comprising:
(Taguchi: para 5: “The dual energy scan as referred to herein is a technique for acquiring images by scanning an object using two different types of tube voltages. CT which uses dual energy scan is referred to as “dual energy CT.””;
para 6: “separate materials on the basis of information acquired using two different types of tube voltages, and then acquire various images, such as monochromatic X-ray images (monochromatic images), density images, effective atomic number images, and artifact-free images (images with reduced artifacts). The X-rays used for dual energy scan are polychromatic X-rays (continuous spectrum X-rays) having various X-ray energies and a specific X-ray energy distribution.”;
para 7: “generate two types of polychromatic X-ray images (polychromatic images) that are typical CT images corresponding to respective two types of X-ray energy distributions, and blend both the images, thus generating a monochromatic X-ray image taken at an X-ray energy desired by an operator.”;
para 29: “The X-ray CT apparatus of the present embodiment is described exemplifying the case of adopting dual energy scan, which is a technique for acquiring images by scanning an object using different types of tube voltages in order to generate images including a monochromatic X-ray image taken at a required X-ray energy, a polychromatic X-ray image taken at in an X-ray energy band, and a polychromatic X-ray blend image, which will be described later.”;
para 30: “the present invention may adopt multi-energy scan at least with dual energy (double energy).”;
para 86: “Returning to the description of FIG. 4, the pre-reconstruction data used by the first generating 72 is sometimes raw data, and is sometimes projection data. If the pre-reconstruction data is raw data, the pre-reconstruction data set is a raw data set (raw data from multiple views). If the pre-reconstruction data is projection data, the pre-reconstruction data set is a projection data set (projection data from multiple views). Multiple views (projection angle) are sometimes an angle within one rotation of the rotational part 32 (shown in FIG. 1), and is sometimes an angle within half a rotation plus a. The present embodiment is described exemplifying the case where the pre-reconstruction data is projection data.”;
para 91: “For example, the reconstructing 72c generates a reference material image of the water component on the basis of the projection data set where a water component is weighted, and generates a reference material image of a contrast material component on the basis of the projection data set where a contrast material component is weighted”;
Para 93: “contrast material”;
: For the contrast media to be present in the projection data, it would have to have been administered prior to imaging);
generating a first monoenergetic image at a first energy level from the projection data (Taguchi: abstract: “reconstructs, as a first image, any of a monochromatic X-ray image and a polychromatic X-ray image on a basis of pre-reconstruction data acquired by scanning an object, the polychromatic X-ray image being taken in a first X-ray energy band;
para 24: “reconstruct, as a first image, any of a monochromatic X-ray image and a polychromatic X-ray image on a basis of pre-reconstruction data acquired by scanning an object, the polychromatic X-ray image being taken in a first X-ray energy band”;
para 82: “The first generating 72 has a function of generating (reconstructing), as a first image, a monochromatic X-ray image taken at an appropriate X-ray energy, on the basis of a pre-reconstruction data set (pre-reconstruction data from multiple views) acquired by dual energy scan. Alternatively, the first generating 72 has a function of generating, as the first image, a polychromatic X-ray image taken in a relatively narrow X-ray energy band (an X-ray energy band narrower than the X-ray energy band of the polychromatic X-ray image by the second generating 73, which will be described later) on the basis of the pre-reconstruction data set acquired by dual energy scan. The present embodiment is described exemplifying the case where the first generating 72 generates, as a first image, the monochromatic X-ray image taken at an appropriate X-ray energy.”;
Fig. 4 (shown below): mainly 72a-72f:
PNG
media_image1.png
537
1083
media_image1.png
Greyscale
);
generating a second monoenergetic image at a second energy level from the projection data (Taguchi: abstract: “reconstructs, as a second image, a polychromatic X-ray image taken in a second X-ray energy band wider than the first X-ray energy band on a basis of a pre-reconstruction data acquired by scanning the object”;
para 24: “reconstruct, as a second image, a polychromatic X-ray image taken in a second X-ray energy band wider than the first X-ray energy band on a basis of a pre-reconstruction data acquired by scanning the object”;
para 25: “a second pre-reconstruction data with polychromatic X-rays, the second pre-reconstruction data being acquired by scanning the object and being in a second X-ray energy band wider than the first X-ray energy band”;
Fig. 4 (shown above): mainly 73a-72e);
subtracting the first monoenergetic image from the second monoenergetic image to obtain a subtracted image (Taguchi: abstract: “corrects the correction area in the second image on a basis of the first image.”;
para 24: “correct the correction area in the second image on a basis of the first image.”;
para 115: “The subtraction image generating 74c performs subtraction between the first image read by the first image data reading 74a and the second image read by the second image data reading 74b, thereby generating a subtraction image. If the second image is the polychromatic X-ray blend image, it is preferred that the subtraction image generating 74c perform subtraction using the first image and the second image having CT values (average values) substantially identical (closest) to each other.”
PNG
media_image2.png
374
949
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
1746
1000
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
571
736
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
922
743
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
667
392
media_image6.png
Greyscale
); and
outputting the subtracted image for display and/or storage (Taguchi: Fig. 10 (shown above): mainly ST3-ST6:
para 128: “The X-ray CT apparatus 1 generates the correction area image that includes in the first image read in step ST1, the areas corresponding to the beam hardening B3 (shown in FIG. 8) as a correction target on the subtraction image generated in step ST3 (step ST4).”;
para 129: “The X-ray CT apparatus 1 combines the correction area image generated in step ST4 with the second image read in step ST2, thereby generating the corrected image. The X-ray CT apparatus 1 then corrects the correction area in the second image on the basis of the subtraction image generated in step ST3 based on the first image (step ST5). The X-ray CT apparatus 1 displays the corrected image generated in step ST5 on the display 65 (step ST6).”;
: After subsequent processing, the subtracted image is displayed).
Taguchi does not teach upon injection of a contrast agent; the ROI comprising a metal component therein.
Vaz teaches upon injection of a contrast agent, obtaining projection data of a region of interest (ROI) of a subject via a dual energy CT angiography scan protocol, the projection data acquired at two different x-ray tube energy levels (Vaz:
Abstract: “upon an injection of a contrast agent, performing a plurality of perfusion acquisitions of a first anatomical region of interest (ROI) of a subject with the imaging system, processing projection data of the first anatomical ROI obtained from the plurality of perfusion acquisitions to measure a contrast signal of the contrast agent”;
Para 4: “upon an injection of a contrast agent, performing a plurality of perfusion acquisitions of a first anatomical region of interest (ROI) of a subject with the imaging system, processing projection data of the first anatomical ROI obtained from the plurality of perfusion acquisitions to measure a contrast signal of the contrast agent, performing a plurality of angiography acquisitions, each angiography acquisition performed at a respective time determined based on the contrast signal, and performing one or more additional perfusion acquisitions between each angiography acquisition.”;
Para 27: “a contrast agent is administered to the patient prior to the diagnostic imaging scan. These diagnostic imaging protocols may include two contrast scans, such as a computed tomography (CT) angiography (CTA) scan followed by a CT perfusion (CTP) scan. In a CTA followed by a CTP (or in a CTP followed by a CTA), the decision of when to administer the second contrast agent bolus may be challenging, and if timed incorrectly, may result in non-diagnostic images and/or undesired patient outcomes. For example, if the second contrast agent bolus is administered too soon after the first contrast scan, diagnostic image quality of images acquired during the second contrast scan may be degraded due to venous contrast contamination from the first contrast agent bolus. However, if the second contrast agent bolus is administered too late after the first contrast scan, patient outcome (e.g., life expectancy, quality of life) may be impacted.”;
Para 36: “FIG. 1 illustrates an exemplary CT system 100 configured for CT imaging. Particularly, the CT system 100 is configured to image a subject 112 such as a patient, an inanimate object, one or more manufactured parts, and/or foreign objects such as dental implants, stents, and/or contrast agents present within the body. …
Although FIG. 1 depicts only a single x-ray source 104, in certain embodiments, multiple x-ray radiation sources and detectors may be employed to project a plurality of x-rays 106 for acquiring projection data at different energy levels corresponding to the patient. In some embodiments, the x-ray source 104 may enable dual-energy gemstone spectral imaging (GSI) by rapid peak kilovoltage (kVp) switching. In some embodiments, the x-ray detector employed is a photon-counting detector which is capable of differentiating x-ray photons of different energies. In other embodiments, two sets of x-ray tube-detectors are used to generate dual-energy projections, with one set at low-kVp and the other at high-kVp. It should thus be appreciated that the methods described herein may be implemented with single energy acquisition techniques as well as dual energy acquisition techniques.”;
Para 162: “upon an injection of a contrast agent, processing acquired projection data of a monitoring area of a subject to measure a contrast signal of the contrast agent; estimating two or more target times of the contrast agent at the monitoring area of the subject based on the contrast signal”;
Para 164: “upon an injection of a contrast agent, process projection data of a monitoring region of interest (ROI) of a subject from the DAS to measure a contrast signal of the contrast agent; estimate a two or more target times of the subject based on the contrast signal; and perform a contrast scan that includes two or more acquisitions each performed at a respective target time.”;
Para 167: “upon an injection of a contrast agent, process projection data of a monitoring area of the subject from the DAS to measure a contrast signal of the contrast agent; determine when each of five zones of a contrast scan are estimated to occur based on the contrast signal”;
Para 168: “upon an injection of a contrast agent, performing a plurality of perfusion acquisitions of a first anatomical region of interest (ROI) of a subject with the imaging system; processing projection data of the first anatomical ROI obtained from the plurality of perfusion acquisitions to measure a contrast signal of the contrast agent; performing a plurality of angiography acquisitions, each angiography acquisition performed at a respective time determined based on the contrast signal; and performing one or more additional perfusion acquisitions between each angiography acquisition.”;
Para 169: “upon an injection of a contrast agent, performing an angiography scan while also performing a perfusion scan during a single scanning session, the angiography scan including a plurality of angiography acquisitions each performed at a respective time determined based on a contrast signal, the contrast signal measured from a plurality of images reconstructed from projection data acquired during at least a first portion of the perfusion scan”
Paras 170-173: “upon an injection of a contrast agent… ”).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to filing, to implement the teachings of Vaz into Taguchi since both Taguchi and Vaz suggest a practical solution and field of endeavor of computed tomography dual energy contrast agent angiography head scanning performed after injection of a contrast agent in general and Vaz additionally provides teachings that can be incorporated into Taguchi in that scanning is performed upon injection of the contrast agent as “to measure a contrast signal of the contrast agent” (Vaz: abstract, para 4). The teachings of Vaz can be incorporated into Taguchi in that scanning is performed upon injection of the contrast agent. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and, in combination, each component functions the same as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Silver teaches the ROI comprising a metal component therein (Silver: para 54: “Clinical applications often involve the implantation of metal, such as coils or stents, into the patient. Coils, which are often closely packed into aneurysms and are of high density, cause severe streaks in CT reconstructions.”;
Para 57: “The ROI is defined to include a metal coil.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to filing, to implement the teachings of Silver into Taguchi in view of Vaz since both Taguchi in view of Vaz and Silver suggest a practical solution and field of endeavor of subtracting different energy images from dual energy x-ray CT in general and Silver additionally provides teachings that can be incorporated into Taguchi in view of Vaz in that the ROI is a metal coil because coils are “closely packed into aneurysms and are of high density” (Silver: para 54). The teachings of Silver can be incorporated into Taguchi in view of Vaz in that the ROI is a metal coil. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and, in combination, each component functions the same as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination would be predictable.
As per claim 5, Taguchi in view of Vaz and Silver teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the metal component is a coil (Silver: See arguments and citations offered in rejecting claim 1 above).
As per claim(s) 8, arguments made in rejecting claim(s) 1 are analogous. Taguchi also teaches an image processing system, comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions executable by the one or more processors (Taguchi: para 56: “processor circuitry”; paras 55-58; Figs. 1-3).
As per claim(s) 11 and 12, arguments made in rejecting claim(s) 1 are analogous.
As per claim 15, Taguchi in view of Vaz and Silver teaches the method of claim 12, wherein a first projection dataset and a second projection dataset are extracted from the projection data to generate a first material-density image and a second material-density image (Taguchi in view of Vaz and Silver: See arguments and citations offered in rejecting claim 12 above; note that x-ray images are material density images because the pixel values indicate the density of the material that the x-trays pass through).
Claim(s) 2, 3, 6, 7, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taguchi in view of Vaz and Silver as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of US 20190167218 A1 (Hsieh).
As per claim 2, Taguchi in view of Vaz and Silver teaches the method of claim 1. Taguchi in view of Silver does not teach the projection data is acquired at 80 kVp and 140 kVp. Hsieh teaches these limitations (Hsieh: para 16: “multiple acquisitions at different peak kilovoltage (kVp)…
dual energy, in which the x-ray tube operates, for instance, at 80 kVp and 140 kVp potentials”;
para 67: “generating the differential image comprises subtracting the high energy image from the low energy image to generate the differential image”).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to filing, to implement the teachings of Hsieh into Taguchi in view of Vaz and Silver since both Taguchi in view of Vaz and Silver and Hsieh suggest a practical solution and field of endeavor of subtracting different energy images from dual energy x-ray CT in general and Hsieh additionally provides teachings that can be incorporated into Taguchi in view of Vaz and Silver in that the projection data is acquired at 80 kVp and 140 kVp so that “Two scans are acquired, either back-to-back sequentially in time where the scans require two rotations around the subject, hereinafter referred to as rotate-rotate dual energy, or interleaved as a function of the rotation angle requiring one rotation around the subject” (Hsieh: para 16). The teachings of Hsieh can be incorporated into Taguchi in view of Vaz and Silver in that the projection data is acquired at 80 kVp and 140 kVp. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and, in combination, each component functions the same as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination would be predictable.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to implement that the projection data is acquired at 80 kVp and 140 kVp, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (MPEP 2144.05 (II-B)).
As per claim 3, Taguchi in view of Vaz, Silver and Hsieh teaches the method of claim 2, wherein an entirety of the projection data is acquired following the injection of the contrast agent to the subject (Taguchi: para 91: “For example, the reconstructing 72c generates a reference material image of the water component on the basis of the projection data set where a water component is weighted, and generates a reference material image of a contrast material component on the basis of the projection data set where a contrast material component is weighted”;
Para 93: “contrast material”;
: For the contrast media to be present in the projection data, it would have to have been administered prior to imaging).
As per claim 6, Taguchi in view of Vaz and Silver teaches the method of claim 1. Taguchi in view of Vaz and Silver does not teach the first energy level is 40 keV. Hsieh teaches these limitations (Hsieh: para 57: “for some dual-energy imaging systems, monochromatic images can be generated from 40 keV to 140 keV at 1 keV increments”;
Para 58: “The first energy is 40 keV”).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to filing, to implement the teachings of Hsieh into Taguchi in view of Vaz and Silver since both Taguchi in view of Vaz and Silver and Hsieh suggest a practical solution and field of endeavor of subtracting different energy images from dual energy x-ray CT in general and Hsieh additionally provides teachings that can be incorporated into Taguchi in view of Vaz and Silver in that the first energy level is 40 keV and the second energy level is 140 keV since “dual-energy applications, monochromatic images can be generated at any keV” (Hsieh: para 57). The teachings of Hsieh can be incorporated into Taguchi in view of Vaz and Silver in that the first energy level is 40 keV and the second energy level is 140 keV. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and, in combination, each component functions the same as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination would be predictable.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to implement that the first energy level is 40 keV and the second energy level is 140 keV, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (MPEP 2144.05 (II-B)).
As per claim 7, Taguchi in view of Vaz and Silver teaches the method of claim 1. Taguchi in view of Vaz and Silver does not teach the second energy level is 140 keV. Hsieh teaches these limitations (Hsieh: para 57: “for some dual-energy imaging systems, monochromatic images can be generated from 40 keV to 140 keV at 1 keV increments”).
As per claim(s) 13, 14, arguments made in rejecting claim(s) 2, (6 & 7) are analogous.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taguchi in view of Vaz and Silver as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of US 20230218254 A1 (Fukuda).
As per claim 9, Taguchi in view of Vaz and Silver teaches the system of claim 8, wherein subtracting the first monoenergetic image from the second monoenergetic image to obtain the subtracted image comprises:
(Taguchi: See arguments and citations offered in rejecting claim 8 above;
para 59: “The OS may also provide a GUI (graphical user interface), which uses a lot of graphics to display information on the display 65 for an operator, such as a practitioner, and allows basic operations to be performed through the input device 64.”; paras 142, 158, 167: operator).
Taguchi in view of Vaz and Silver does not teach the struck-through limitations shown above pertaining to user selection and control via an interface. Fukuda teaches these limitations (Fukuda:
Para 83: “the region of interest may be specified from each of the low-energy image 70L and the high-energy image 70H by displaying the low-energy image 70L and the high-energy image 70H on the display unit 58 and receiving the information about the region of interest designated by the user for each of the low-energy image 70L and the high-energy image 70H.”;
Para 85: “the region of interest may be specified from the difference image 72 by receiving information about the region of interest input by the user. Specifically, at least one image of the difference image 72, the low-energy image 70L, or the high-energy image 70H may be displayed on the display unit 58, and a region designated by the user operating the operation unit 56 on the display image may be received as the information about the region of interest.”;
Para 121: “the difference image 72 having the highest contrast of a region designated by the user on the radiation image 84 or the low-energy image 70L is displayed.”;
Para 126: “a form may be adopted in which the timing of each of the generation of the difference image 72 and the display of the difference image 72 is a timing according to the user’s desire after the contrast imaging”).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to filing, to implement the teachings of Fukuda into Taguchi in view of Vaz and Silver since both Taguchi in view of Vaz and Silver and Fukuda suggest a practical solution and field of endeavor of low and high energy tomography image subtraction in general and Fukuda additionally provides teachings that can be incorporated into Taguchi in view of Vaz and Silver in that a user selects the images and designates image subtraction as for “assisting the user in interpreting the image” (Fukuda: para 115). The teachings of Fukuda can be incorporated into Taguchi in view of Vaz and Silver in that a user selects the images and designates image subtraction. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and, in combination, each component functions the same as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination would be predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art, prior to filing, would have recognized the advantage of user step-wise control through interactivity. The teachings of the prior art could have been incorporated into Taguchi in that user selection and control via an interface is enabled.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taguchi in view of Vaz, Silver and Fukuda as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of US 20210056688 (Xu).
As per claim 10, Taguchi in view of Vaz, Silver and Fukuda teaches the system of claim 9, wherein the subtracted image is output on the user interface of the display device (Taguchi: See arguments and citations offered in rejecting claim 8 above; Also see for displaying uncorrected image:
Para 33: “display a reconstructed image”;
Para 111: display).
Taguchi in view of Vaz, Silver and Fukuda does not teach alongside. Xu teaches alongside (Xu:
Para 24: “In an operation 44, for the illustrative iGT application the corrected X-ray image 40 may be fused or otherwise combined with the metal artifact image 34 (or an image derived from the metal artifact image 34) to generate an iGT guidance display that is suitably shown on a display 46 for consultation by the surgeon or other medical personnel.”
PNG
media_image7.png
554
774
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
663
1025
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
707
1028
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
608
1003
media_image10.png
Greyscale
).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to filing, to implement the teachings of Xu into Taguchi in view of Vaz, Silver and Fukuda since both Taguchi in view of Vaz, Silver and Fukuda and Xu suggest a practical solution and field of endeavor of subtracting different energy x-ray images to remove metal artifacts and displaying the corrected and uncorrected image in general and Xu additionally provides teachings that can be incorporated into Taguchi in view of Vaz, Silver and Fukuda in that the corrected and uncorrected image are displayed alongside each other as “to generate an iGT guidance display that is suitably shown on a display 46 for consultation by the surgeon or other medical personnel” (Xu: para 24). The teachings of Xu can be incorporated into Taguchi in view of Vaz, Silver and Fukuda in that the corrected and uncorrected image are displayed alongside each other. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and, in combination, each component functions the same as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination would be predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art, prior to filing, would have recognized the advantage of visual comparison before and after correction. The teachings of the prior art could have been incorporated into Taguchi in that the before correction image is displayed alongside the after correction image.
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taguchi in view of Vaz, and Silver as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of US 20140363069 A1 (Hsieh).
As per claim 18, Taguchi in view of Vaz, and Silver teaches the method of claim 12. Taguchi in view of Vaz, and Silver does not teach the first peak energy level is different than the first energy level. Hsieh teaches these limitations (Hsieh: para 21: “As noted above, the X-ray source 12 may be configured to emit X-rays at more than one energy spectrum. That is, though such emissions may be generally described or discussed as being at a particular energy (e.g., 80 kVp, 140 kVp, and so forth), the respective X-ray emissions at a given energy are actually along a continuum or spectrum and may, therefore, constitute a polychromatic emission centered at, or having a peak strength at, the target energy.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to filing, to implement the teachings of Hsieh into Taguchi in view of Vaz, and Silver since both Taguchi in view of Vaz, and Silver and Hsieh suggest a practical solution and field of endeavor of correcting artifacts in multi-energy CT images in general and Hsieh additionally provides teachings that can be incorporated into Taguchi in view of Vaz, and Silver in that the first peak energy level is different than the first energy level since “For example, the X-ray source 12 may be configured to switch between relatively low energy polychromatic emission spectra (e.g., at about 80 kVp) and relatively high energy polychromatic emission spectra (e.g., at about 140 kVp). As will be appreciated, the X-ray source 12 may also be operated so as to emit X-rays at more than two different energies, though dual-energy embodiments are discussed herein to simplify explanation. Similarly, the X-ray source 12 may emit at polychromatic spectra localized around energy levels (i.e., kVp ranges) other than those listed herein (e.g., 100 kVP, 120 kVP, etc.). Indeed, selection of the respective energy levels for emission may be based, at least in part, on the anatomy being imaged.” (Hsieh: para 17). The teachings of Hsieh can be incorporated into Taguchi in view of Vaz, and Silver in that the first peak energy level is different than the first energy level. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and, in combination, each component functions the same as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taguchi in view of Vaz, and Silver as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Xu.
As per claim 19, Taguchi in view of Vaz, and Silver teaches the method of claim 11. Taguchi in view of Vaz, and Silver does not teach wherein metal artifact reduction is not applied to the subtracted image.
Xu teaches these limitations (Xu: Fig. 1 (shown below): mainly 30, 34, 36, 40;
Para 21: “In an image subtraction operation 36, the metal artifact image 34 is subtracted from the uncorrected X-ray image 30 to generate a corrected X-ray image 40 with suppressed metal artifact(s).”;
Para 5: “applying a neural network to the uncorrected X ray image to generate a metal artifact image; and generating a corrected X-ray image by subtracting the metal artifact image from the uncorrected X-ray image. The neural network is trained to extract image content comprising a metal artifact.”;
: metal artifact reduction is not applied to the subtracted image
PNG
media_image11.png
637
888
media_image11.png
Greyscale
).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to filing, to implement the teachings of Xu into Taguchi in view of Vaz, and Silver since both Taguchi in view of Vaz, and Silver and Xu suggest a practical solution and field of endeavor of correcting artifacts in CT images via image subtraction in general and Xu additionally provides teachings that can be incorporated into Taguchi in view of Vaz, and Silver in that metal artifact reduction is not applied to the subtracted image so that “metal artifacts such as shading and streaks seen in the “Polychromatic” images (leftmost column) were almost entirely removed in the “CNN-corrected” images generated by subtracting the “CNN Output (Artifact” images (second column from left) from the “Polychromatic” images” (Xu: para 36) and “This residual image approach has certain advantages, including providing improved training for the neural network 32 and providing the metal artifact (i.e. residual) image 34 which can be useful in and of itself or in combination with the corrected X-ray image 40” (Xu: para 26). The teachings of Xu can be incorporated into Taguchi in view of Vaz, and Silver in that metal artifact reduction is not applied to the subtracted image. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and, in combination, each component functions the same as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination would be predictable.
As per claim 20, Taguchi in view of Vaz, and Silver teaches the method of claim 11. Taguchi in view of Vaz, and Silver does not teach outputting the subtracted image for display comprises outputting the subtracted image for display alongside an uncorrected image generated from the projection data. Xu teaches these limitations (Xu: See arguments and citations offered in rejecting claim 10 above).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to filing, to implement the teachings of Xu into Taguchi in view of Vaz, and Silver since both Taguchi in view of Vaz, and Silver and Xu suggest a practical solution and field of endeavor of subtracting different energy x-ray images to remove metal artifacts and displaying the corrected and uncorrected image in general and Xu additionally provides teachings that can be incorporated into Taguchi in view of Vaz, and Silver in that the corrected and uncorrected image are displayed alongside each other as “to generate an iGT guidance display that is suitably shown on a display 46 for consultation by the surgeon or other medical personnel” (Xu: para 24). The teachings of Xu can be incorporated into Taguchi in view of Vaz, and Silver in that the corrected and uncorrected image are displayed alongside each other. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and, in combination, each component functions the same as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination would be predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art, prior to filing, would have recognized the advantage of visual comparison before and after correction. The teachings of the prior art could have been incorporated into Taguchi in that the before correction image is displayed alongside the after correction image.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Atiba Fitzpatrick whose telephone number is (571) 270-5255. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10:00am-6pm.
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 Atiba Fitzpatrick is (571) 270-6255.
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.
Atiba Fitzpatrick
/ATIBA O FITZPATRICK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677