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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, a trained generator network claimed in claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Cross reference to related applications should include U. S. Patent No. 11,806,175 B2 issued on 7 November 2023.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
3. (Proposed Amendments) The system of claim 1, wherein the generator network is configured to reconstruct the reconstructed image using O(C x N x NV) parameters, where N is a dimension of the reconstructed image, NV is a number of projections, and C is an adjustable hyper-parameter in [[the]] a range (a lack of an antecedent basis) of 1 to N.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
6. (Proposed Amendments) The system of claim 1, wherein an objective function that is configured to optimize the generator network during training comprise an error [[term,]] term and a structural similarity index term.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 8-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
8. (Proposed Amendments) A method for a few-view computed tomography (CT) image reconstruction, the method comprising:
receiving, by a generator network, a few-view sinogram;
generating, by the generator network, a reconstructed image corresponding to the few-view sinogram;
receiving, by a discriminator network, an input image; and
determining, by the discriminator network, whether the received input image corresponds to the reconstructed image or a ground truth image,
wherein the generator network and the discriminator network correspond to a Wasserstein generative adversarial network (WGAN), the generator network is configured to learn a reconstruction process in a point-wise manner, and a trained generator network is configured to reconstruct a few-view CT image directly from a corresponding input few-view sinogram.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
10. (Proposed Amendments) The method of claim 8, wherein the generator network is configured to reconstruct the reconstructed image using O(C x N x NV) parameters, where N is a dimension of the reconstructed image, NV is a number of projections, and C is an adjustable hyper-parameter in [[the]] a range (a lack of an antecedent basis) of 1 to N.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
13. (Proposed Amendments) The method of claim 8, wherein an objective function that is configured to optimize the generator network during training comprises an error [[term,]] term and a structural similarity index term.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 15-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
15. (Proposed Amendments) A computer readable storage device having stored thereon instructions configured for a few-view computed tomography (CT) image reconstruction, the instructions that when executed by one or more processors result in the following operations comprising:
receiving a few-view sinogram;
generating a reconstructed image corresponding to the few-view sinogram;
receiving an input image; and
determining whether the received input image corresponds to the reconstructed image or a ground truth image,
wherein the operations correspond to a Wasserstein generative adversarial network (WGAN), a reconstruction process is learned in a point-wise manner, and a trained generator network is configured to reconstruct a few-view CT image directly from a corresponding input few-view sinogram.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
17. (Proposed Amendments) The device of claim 15, wherein the reconstructed image is reconstructed using O(C x N x NV) parameters, where N is a dimension of the reconstructed image, NV is a number of projections, and C is an adjustable hyper-parameter in [[the]] a range (a lack of an antecedent basis) of 1 to N.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
18. (Proposed Amendments) The device of claim 15, wherein the instructions that when executed by [[one]] the one or more processors result in the following additional operations comprising:
training the WGAN, initially, using image data from an image database comprising a plurality of images.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
20. (Proposed Amendments) The device of claim 15, wherein an objective function that is configured to optimize the generator network during training comprises an error [[term,]] term and a structural similarity index term.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 a 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 a 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 limitations use 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: a generator network, a discriminator network, and trained generator network in claims 1-7.
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 a 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 it/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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites a passive limitation “a trained generator network” in lines 9-11, which renders the claim indefinite. There is an insufficient antecedent basis for the passive limitation. The trained generator network is not connected to any previously recited limitation. It is unclear whether the few-view computed tomography (CT) image reconstruction system further comprises a trained generator network. See transitional phrases in MPEP § 2111.03 for more information.
Claim 4 recites a functional limitation “the WGAN is trained, initially, using image data from an image database comprising a plurality of images” in lines 1-2, which renders the claim indefinite because the boundaries of claim 4 are not reasonably clear.
During examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. It is a best practice to make the record clear during prosecution by explaining the BRI of claim terms, as necessary, including explaining the BRI of any functional language. When 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked, the BRI of the “means-plus-function” limitation is restricted to a corresponding structure in the supporting disclosure, and its equivalents (a corresponding specification that identifies and links a structure, material, or act to the function recited in the claim is considered to be part of the claim limitation). When 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is not invoked and an element is recited along with a function, that element is construed as being capable of performing the function – in other words, the BRI of that element is limited by the function.
It should be kept in mind, however, that there is a distinction between reciting a function compared to reciting an intended use or result. A functional limitation can provide a patentable distinction (limit the claim scope) by imposing limits on the function of a structure, material, or action. Typically, no patentable distinction (no limit on the claim scope) is made by an intended use or result unless some structural difference is imposed by the use or result on the structure or material recited in the claim, or some manipulative difference is imposed by the use or result on the action recited in the claim.
While functional limitations may be properly used in claims, the boundaries imposed by a functional limitation must be clearly defined to be definite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claim language that merely states a result to be obtained without providing boundaries on the claim scope (e.g., by not specifying any way to achieve those results) is unclear. Consider the following to determine whether a claim limitation expressed in functional language has clear boundaries: whether one of ordinary skill in the art can determine what structure, material, or act in the claim performs this function; whether the limitation has well defined boundaries or only expresses a problem solved or intended result; and what an anticipatory reference would need to disclose in order to satisfy this claim limitation. These considerations are not all-inclusive or limiting.
When 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked, the specification must adequately disclose a corresponding structure, material, or act that performs the function. For “means”-type claims, an adequate disclosure requires that a corresponding structure or material is: (a) disclosed in a way that one of ordinary skill in the art will understand what specific structure or material the inventor has identified to perform the recited function; (b) sufficient to perform the entire function recited in the claim limitation; and (c) clearly linked to the function in the written description.
When the examiner determines that the boundaries of a claim are not reasonably clear, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) should be made. Such a rejection puts the applicant on notice that it must fulfill its statutory duty under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) to ensure that claim language clearly defines the boundaries of the claim scope sought. In making a rejection, the examiner must identify the specific claim language that is indefinite, and explain why that language renders the boundaries of the claim unclear. When possible, the examiner should suggest how the indefiniteness issues may be resolved.
The boundaries of the functional language are unclear because the claim does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, i.e., a generator network and a discriminator network, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the few-view computed tomography (CT) image reconstruction system in a certain manner. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information.
The limitation is unclear because it merely states a function (“the WGAN is trained, initially, using image data from an image database comprising a plurality of images”) without providing any indication about how the function is performed. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, i.e., a generator network and a discriminator network, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the few-view computed tomography (CT) image reconstruction system in a certain manner.
Claim 5 recites a passive limitation “an objective function used during training comprises a Wasserstein distance and a gradient penalty” in lines 1-2, which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what structural limitation is claimed in claim 5. An object function is considered an abstract mathematical concept as judicial exceptions rather than a structural limitation. See Abstract Idea Groupings in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) for more information. Furthermore, the phrase “during training” also renders the passive limitation indefinite, as it is unclear what is being trained.
Claim 6 recites a passive limitation “an objective function that is configured to optimize the generator network during training comprises an error term, and a structural similarity index term” in lines 1-2, which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what structural limitation is claimed in claim 6. An object function is considered an abstract mathematical concept as judicial exceptions rather than a structural limitation. See Abstract Idea Groupings in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) for more information. Furthermore, the phrase “during training” also renders the passive limitation indefinite, as it is unclear what is being trained.
Claim 8 recites a passive limitation “a trained generator network is configured to reconstruct a few-view CT image directly from a corresponding input few-view sinogram” in lines 11-13, which renders the claim indefinite. There is an insufficient antecedent basis for the passive limitation in the claim. The trained generator network is not connected to any previously recited limitation.
Claim 12 recites a phrase “during training” in line 1, which renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear what is being trained.
Claim 13 recites a phrase “during training” in line 2, which renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear what is being trained.
Claim 15 recites a passive limitation “a trained generator network is configured to reconstruct a few-view CT image directly from a corresponding input few-view sinogram” in lines 10-12, which renders the claim indefinite. There is an insufficient antecedent basis for the passive limitation in the claim. The trained generator network is not connected to any previously recited limitation.
Claim 16 recites a limitation “the generator network” in line 1, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites a phrase “during training” in line 1, which renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear what is being trained.
Claim 20 recites a limitation “the generator network” in lines 1-2, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites a phrase “during training” in line 2, which renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear what is being trained.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS. —Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 4-6 fail to set forth a further structural limitation of the few-view computed tomography (CT) image reconstruction system. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang et al. (U. S. Patent No. 12,175,734 B2) disclosed CT big data from a simulation, an emulation, and transfer learning.
Xie et al. (U. S. Patent No. 11,806,175 B2) disclosed a few-view CT image reconstruction system.
Murez et al. (U. S. Patent No. 11,620,527 B2) disclosed a domain adaption learning system.
Zhang et al. (U. S. Patent No. 11,593,977 B2) disclosed systems and methods for an image reconstruction in positron emission tomography.
Wang et al. (U. S. Patent No. 11,580,410 B2) disclosed a 3-D convolutional auto-encoder for low-dose CT via transfer learning from a 2-D trained network.
Hu et al. (U. S. Patent No. 11,514,621 B2) disclosed a method of a low-dose image reconstruction and a system based on a prior anatomical structure difference.
Zhang et al. (U. S. Patent No. 11,501,473 B2) disclosed systems and methods for an image correction in positron emission tomography.
Wang et al. (U. S. Patent No. 11,120,551 B2) disclosed training a CNN with a pseudo ground truth for a reduction in CT artifacts.
Zhong et al. (U. S. Patent No. 11,048,974 B2) disclosed effective structure keeping for generative adversarial networks for a single image super resolution.
Xing et al. (U. S. Patent No. 10,984,565 B2) disclosed an image-processing method using a convolution neural network, an image-processing device, and a storage medium.
Wang et al. (U. S. Patent No. 10,970,887 B2) disclosed a reconstruction of a tomographic image via machine learning.
Zhou et al. (U. S. Patent No. 10,709,394 B2) disclosed a method and a system for a 3D-reconstruction of an X-ray CT volume and a segmentation mask from a few X-ray radiographs.
Chao Tang et al., Generative adversarial network-based sinogram super-resolution for computed tomography imaging, Phys, Med. Biol. 65 (2020), 235006.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Allen C. Ho whose telephone number is (571) 272-2491. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM - 6PM.
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, David J. Makiya can be reached at (571) 272-2273. 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.
Allen C. Ho, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/Allen C. Ho/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights