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 .
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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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. While bk, ck indicate these are a matrices resulting from the previous computation, it does not say what each matrix is or represents. The term λ.sub.k is just described as a matrix but no definition is provided to indicate what the matrix values represent.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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. While bk, ck indicate these are a matrices resulting from the previous computation, it does not say what each matrix is or represents. The term λ.sub.k is just described as a matrix but no definition is provided to indicate what the matrix values represent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites multiplying elements of a reconstructed image represented by a matrix ƒ.sub.l.sup.t by corresponding elements of a matrix α.sub.kl whose elements are determined before the iterative reconstruction process is started, and summation of all the results of these multiplications; this process is repeated for every index k of the matrix α.sub.kl; the resulting matrix is a matrix b.sub.k.sup.t; dividing all the values of a matrix λ.sub.k, obtained after the measurements performed in the scanner, by the corresponding elements of the matrix b.sub.k.sup.t, obtained as a result of the previous step of the iterative reconstruction process; the resulting matrix is a matrix c.sub.k.sup.t; multiplying elements of the matrix c.sub.k.sup.t, obtained as a result of the previous step of the iterative reconstruction process, by corresponding elements of the matrix α.sub.kl whose elements are determined before the iterative reconstruction process is started, and summation of all the results of these multiplications; this process is repeated for every index l of the matrix α.sub.kl; the resulting matrix is a matrix d.sub.l.sup.t; subtracting from all the values of the matrix d.sub.l.sup.t, obtained as a result of the previous step of the iterative reconstruction process, the corresponding elements of a matrix gi whose elements are determined according to the relation (5) before the iterative reconstruction process is started; the resulting matrix is a matrix e.sub.l.sup.t; performing a correction of the reconstructed image represented by the matrix ƒ.sub.l.sup.t using corresponding elements of the matrix e.sub.l.sup.t, obtained as a result of the previous step of the iterative reconstruction process; using a criterion for stopping the iterative process. The image itself is collected as insignificant pre-solution activity. The following limitations are pure math and fall within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The limitation “performing a correction of the reconstructed image represented by the matrix ƒ.sub.l.sup.t using corresponding elements of the matrix e.sub.l.sup.t, obtained as a result of the previous step of the iterative reconstruction process” is almost sufficient to overcome the rejection, however, the transformed image should then be displayed/used in some way to show the real world practical application of the claimed mathematical processes.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. There is not a component such as using the data in further imaging scans and/or a display to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application to impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the use of the resulting image is not discussed. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Examiner recommends adding a limitation to indicate the transformed image is displayed/used in some way to show the real world practical application of the claimed mathematical processes.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
“Overview of Methods for Image Reconstruction From Projections in Emission Computed Tomography”: (reconstruction, abstract) (whole body PET, Fig. 1, PET scanner, Fig. 2) (
PNG
media_image1.png
60
264
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, p1593); (
PNG
media_image2.png
54
312
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,The algorithm is designed to produce a sequence of estimates that converges to a solution maximizing (or minimizing) the objective
function., p1594) (
PNG
media_image3.png
136
390
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image4.png
38
386
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, p1595).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE M ENTEZARI HAUSMANN whose telephone number is (571)270-5084. The examiner can normally be reached 10-7 M-F.
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, Vincent M Rudolph can be reached at (571) 272-8243. 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.
/MICHELLE M ENTEZARI HAUSMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2671
Prosecution Insights