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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 05/06/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3 and 5-20 are still pending in this application.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 13, 15-16, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Brendel et al. (US 20210282733) in view of Matsuura et al. (US 20230404514).
Regarding claim 14, Brendel teaches a system for spectral imaging, comprising: at least one storage device storing a set of instructions; and at least one processor in communication with the storage device (fig.1)), wherein when executing the set of instructions, the at least one processor is configured to cause the system to perform operations including:
obtaining scan data of a target subject (p0124: receive the multi-spectral medical imaging data and p0007: multi-spectral image data of a region of interest of a patient);
determining, based on the scan data, spectral intermediate data (o0124:process it using the apparatus); and generating, based on the spectral intermediate data, a target spectral image (p00125:generate output image data having a reduced level of edge noise ). wherein the spectral intermediate data includes at least one of noise spectral intermediate data or denoised spectral intermediate data (p0008:the first and second basis image data contains noise).
Brendel does not teach volume of the noise spectral intermediate data or a volume of the denoised spectral intermediate data is related to the type of the target spectral image.
Matsuura teaches wherein a volume of the noise spectral intermediate data (p0071: the first X-ray tube voltage image (a lower resolution and more noise: (volume of the nice)) or a volume of the denoised spectral intermediate data is related to the type of a target spectral image (p0071:the data processing function 445 obtains, for example, obtains one (a lower resolution and more noise) of the following images from the reconstruction processing function 443: …for example, the plurality of energy images).
Brendel and Matsuura are combinable because they both deal with management servers with a printing apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Brendel with the teaching of Matsuura for purpose to solve the problem of the FBP-based reconstruction method (p0004)
Regarding claim 1, The structural elements of apparatus claim 14 perform all of the steps of method claim 1. Thus, claim 1 is rejected for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 14.
Claim 20 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 14 and in accordance with Brendel’s further teaching on: A computer-readable memory that contains instructions, which when executed by a processor perform steps in a method (p0034).
Regarding claim 15, Brendel teaches the system of claim 1, wherein to generate, based on the spectral intermediate data, the target spectral image, the at least one processor is configured to cause the system to perform operations including:
obtaining a first processing parameter; and generating, based on the spectral intermediate data and the first processing parameter, the target spectral image (p0125: generate output image data having a reduced level of edge noise).
Regarding claim 5, The structural elements of apparatus claim 15 perform all of the steps of method claim 5. Thus, claim 5 is rejected for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, Brendel teaches the system claim 15, wherein the first processing parameter is related to a target noise level, and to generate, based on the spectral intermediate data and the first processing parameter, the target spectral image, the at least one processor is configured to cause the system to perform operations including: generating the target spectral image by performing a weighting operation on the spectral intermediate data based on the target noise level (p0026: receive the multi-spectral medical imaging data, and to process it using the apparatus for simultaneous edge noise reduction and p0012:the first basis image data weighted by the first weight).
Regarding claim 6, The structural elements of apparatus claim 16 perform all of the steps of method claim 6. Thus, claim 6 is rejected for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 16.
Regarding claim 13, Brendel teaches The method of claim 1, further including: generating, based on at least one intermediate image and the spectral intermediate data, a spectral data packet; transmitting the spectral data packet to a second processing device by the first processing device (p0049: acquisition module 12), the first processing device being configured to process the scan data (fig. 1: 12); and generating, based on the spectral data packet, the target spectral image by the second processing device, the second processing device being configured to access a service terminal (16 in fig. 1).
Claims 3, 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brendel as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Natanzon et al. (US 20230360201).
Regarding claim 17, Brendel teaches the system of claim 15, wherein the first processing parameter is related to a type of the target spectral image, and to generate, based on the spectral intermediate data and the first processing parameter, the target spectral image, the at least one processor is configured to cause the system to perform operations including: determining first spectral processing data by using the first processing parameter to process the spectral intermediate data; and generating the target spectral image by performing a weighting operation on the first spectral processing data (p0026:receive the multi-spectral medical imaging data, and to process it using the apparatus for simultaneous edge noise reduction and p0012:the first basis image data weighted by the first weight).
Brendel does not teaches wherein the first processing parameter is related to a type of the target spectral image
Natanzon teaches wherein the first processing parameter is related to a type of the target spectral image (p0069: spectral imagery may be processed into other imagery still, such as a virtual monochromatic image, a contrast agent quantitative map, a virtual non-contrast image, an electron density image, and/or other spectral imagery).
Brendel and Natanzon are combinable because they both deal with management servers with a printing apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Brendel with the teaching of Natanzon for purpose for improvements in spectral imaging (p0012).
Regarding claim 3, Brendel in view of Natanzon teaches the method of claim 2, wherein a type of the target spectral image includes at least one of: a dual-base material pair image, a virtual monoenergetic image, a virtual non-contrast image, an electron density image, or an effective atomic number image teaches wherein the first processing parameter is related to a type of the target spectral image (Natanzon: p0069: spectral imagery may be processed into other imagery still, such as a virtual monochromatic image, a contrast agent quantitative map, a virtual non-contrast image, an electron density image, and/or other spectral imagery).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 17 has been incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 7, The structural elements of apparatus claim 17 perform all of the steps of method claim 7. Thus, claim 7 is rejected for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 17.
Claims 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brendel as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Tsukuda et al. (US 20220383466).
Regarding claim 18, Brendel does not teach the system of claim 14, wherein to generate, based on the spectral intermediate data, the target spectral image, the at least one processor is configured to cause the system to perform operations including: for each of one or more pixels corresponding to the target subject, determining, based on the spectral intermediate data, an effective atomic number value of the pixel; and generating, based on one or more effective atomic number values of the one or more pixels, the target spectral image.
Tsukuda teaches operations including: for each of one or more pixels corresponding to the target subject, determining, based on the spectral intermediate data, an effective atomic number value of the pixel; and generating, based on one or more effective atomic number values of the one or more pixels, the target spectral image (p0062: target object such as a guide wire can be extracted by performing frequency decomposition on the soft tissue removal image or the effective atomic number image).
Brendel and Tsukuda are combinable because they both deal with management servers with a printing apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Brendel with the teaching of Tsukuda for purpose for provides a technique that enables materials to be separated from a decomposition image obtained by means of spectral imaging or the like, without using a mask image (p0006).
Regarding claim 8, The structural elements of apparatus claim 18 perform all of the steps of method claim 8. Thus, claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 18.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 9-12 and 19 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:
Brendel et al. (US 20210282733) teaches similar system, However, the closest prior art of record, namely Brendel et al. (US 20210282733), does not disclose, teach or suggest, the claim limitation, as recited in dependent claims 9 and 19.
Claims 10-12 are found to be allowable because claim 6 is depending on claim 9.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims have been considered.
Regarding to claim rejections for 35 USC § 103:
The applicant alleges: “Matsuura's paragraph [0071] describes general background context for image acquisition and does not mention "a volume of the noise spectral intermediate data or a volume of the denoised spectral intermediate data" nor does it establish any correlation between such data volume and the type of the target spectral image.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Matsuura in paragraph teaches p0071: the data processing function 445 obtains, for example, obtains one (a lower resolution and more noise) of the following images from the reconstruction processing function 443: …for example, the plurality of energy images). Here More noise represent volume of the noise, for example energy images..).
The applicant further alleges “Even assuming arguendo that Matsuura involves data volume variation, its technical purpose is fundamentally different from the present application. The present application aims to reduce bandwidth and computational burden by allocating data volume on demand based on image type.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The present application only aims to reduce bandwidth and computational burden by allocating data volume on demand based on image type in the application, but does not claim the limitation.
Therefore, Brendel et al. (US 20210282733) in view of Matsuura still disclosed claimed limitations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELEN Q ZONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1600. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9-6.
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, Merouan, Abderrahim can be reached on (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 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.
HELEN ZONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2683
/HELEN ZONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights