DETAILED ACTION
Contents
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 2
Election/Restrictions 2
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 3
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 4
Allowable Subject Matter 9
Conclusion 11
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-12, in the reply filed on 2/9/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-13, 17, 30-35 are currently pending. Claims 13 and 17 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless - (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al (IEEE: “Deep Kernel Representation for Image Reconstruction in PET”). Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a system for positron emission tomography (PET) imaging, comprising: at least one storage device including a set of instructions (see section IV.B); and at least one processor in communication with the at least one storage device (see section IV.B), wherein when executing the set of instructions, the at least one processor is configured to direct the system to perform operations (see section II.a-II.B; section III.B-III.D) including: obtaining scan data of an object in a first time period of a PET scan of the object (see section II.A, section V.A); obtaining a reference image of the object (see section II.A, section V.A), wherein the reference image is reconstructed based on reference scan data in a second time period of the PET scan (section III.D, section V.B); and generating, based on the scan data in the first time period and the reference image of the object, a target image of the object in the first time period (see section III.B, section III.D) using an image reconstruction model (see abstract).
Regarding claims 2, 4, 5, Li discloses at least a portion of the first time period (see section III.D, section V.B);
generating, based on the scan data in the first time period and the reference image of the object, a target image of the object in the first time period using an image reconstruction model includes: obtaining corrected scan data by performing a correction on the scan data in the first time period, the correction including at least one of an attenuation correction, a random correction, or a normalization correction; and generating, based on the corrected scan data and the reference image of the object, the target image of the object using the image reconstruction model (see section II.A);
reference scan data is obtained by performing a scatter correction on scan data in the second time period of the object (see section V.A, section V.B).
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 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 claimedinvention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (IEEE: “Deep Kernel Representation for Image Reconstruction in PET”) in view of Whiteley et al (US 2021/0104079 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Li teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 1. Li does not teach expressly scan data of the object is in form of histo-image.
Whiteley, in the same field of endeavor, teaches scan data of the object is in form of histo-image (see 0003, 0014, 0021-0025, 0060).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Li to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Whiteley. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enhance the speed of output with fewer resources (see 0022). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Li, while the teaching of Whiteley continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (IEEE: “Deep Kernel Representation for Image Reconstruction in PET”) in view of Alvarez-Gomez et al (JI: “Fast Energy Dependent Scatter Correction for List-Mode PETData”).
Regarding claim 10, Li teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 5. Li does not teach expressly determining, based on the scan data in the second time period, a plurality of energy ranges of coincidence events generated in the second time period; determining, based on the plurality of energy ranges of coincidence events, scatter estimation of a tracer for the PET scan in the second time period; and performing, based on the scatter estimation, the scatter correction on the scan data in the second time period of the object.
Alvarez-Gomez, in the same field of endeavor, teaches determining, based on the scan data in the second time period, a plurality of energy ranges of coincidence events generated in the second time period; determining, based on the plurality of energy ranges of coincidence events, scatter estimation of a tracer for the PET scan in the second time period; and performing, based on the scatter estimation, the scatter correction on the scan data in the second time period of the object (see section 2, 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.3.3, 2.3.4).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Li to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Alvarez-Gomez. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to correct scattering and improve image contrast (see abstract). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Li, while the teaching of Alvarez-Gomez continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (IEEE: “Deep Kernel Representation for Image Reconstruction in PET”) in view of El Fakhri et al (US 9,495,771 B2).
Regarding claim 30, Li teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 1. Li does not teach expressly generating, based on the scan data in the first time period and the reference image of the object, a target image of the object includes: performing a motion correction on the reference image to obtain a corrected reference image; and generating, based on the scan data in the first time period and the corrected reference image of the object, a target image of the object.
El Fakhri, in the same field of endeavor, teaches generating, based on the scan data in the first time period and the reference image of the object, a target image of the object includes: performing a motion correction on the reference image to obtain a corrected reference image; and generating, based on the scan data in the first time period and the corrected reference image of the object, a target image of the object (see col. 2, lines 1-40, col. 5, lines 20-67, col. 6, lines 1-67, col. 7, lines 1-30).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Li to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by El Fakhri. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to correct internal and external motion artifacts (see col. 2, lines 40-67). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Li, while the teaching of El Fakhri continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claims 31, 32, 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (IEEE: “Deep Kernel Representation for Image Reconstruction in PET”) in view of Wang (IEEE: “High Temporal-Resolution Dynamic PET Image Reconstruction Using a New Spatiotemporal Kernel Method”).
Regarding claims 31, 32, 34, Li teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 1. Li does not teach expressly obtaining a plurality of candidate reference images; for each of the plurality of candidate reference images, determining a weight corresponding to the candidate reference image; and determining the reference image based on the plurality of candidate reference images and the weights corresponding to the plurality of candidate reference images;
determining the weights corresponding to the plurality of candidate reference images based on reference time periods corresponding to the plurality of candidate reference images and the first time period;
more a reference time period corresponding to a candidate reference image overlaps with the first time period, the greater the weight corresponding to the candidate reference image is.
Wang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches obtaining a plurality of candidate reference images; for each of the plurality of candidate reference images, determining a weight corresponding to the candidate reference image; and determining the reference image based on the plurality of candidate reference images and the weights corresponding to the plurality of candidate reference images (see section II.C, II.B);
determining the weights corresponding to the plurality of candidate reference images based on reference time periods corresponding to the plurality of candidate reference images and the first time period (see section II.C, III);
more a reference time period corresponding to a candidate reference image overlaps with the first time period, the greater the weight corresponding to the candidate reference image is (see section III, section II.C).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Li to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Wang. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to reduce noise and outperform current methods (see abstract). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Li, while the teaching of Wang continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9, 11-12, 33, 35 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.
Regarding claims 6-9, none of the references of record alone or in combination suggest or fairly teach wherein the image reconstruction model is generated according to a training process including: obtaining one or more first training samples each of which includes first sample scan data of a first sample object in a sample first time period, a sample reference image of the first sample object, and a sample target image of the first sample object in the sample first time period, wherein the sample reference image is reconstructed based on sample reference scan data obtained by performing a scatter correction on sample scan data of the first sample object in a sample second time period; and generating the image reconstruction model by training a first preliminary model using the one or more first training samples.
Regarding claims 11-12, none of the references of record alone or in combination suggest or fairly teach wherein the determining, based on the plurality of energy ranges of coincidence events, scatter estimation of a tracer for the PET scan in the second time period includes: obtaining, based on the scan data in the second time period, a count of coincidence events corresponding to each of one or more reference energy ranges among the plurality of energy ranges of coincidence events, wherein energy values in at least one of the one or more reference energy ranges are smaller than an energy value corresponding to a true coincidence event; determining, based on the plurality of energy ranges and the count of coincidence events corresponding to each of the one or more reference energy ranges, the scatter estimation in the second time period.
Regarding claim 33, none of the references of record alone or in combination suggest or fairly teach wherein the plurality of candidate reference images include a first candidate reference image and a second candidate reference image, a first reference time period corresponding to the first candidate reference image includes at least a portion of the first time period, and a second reference time period corresponding to the second candidate reference image does not include at least a portion of the first time period, and a first weight corresponding to the first candidate reference image is greater than the second weight corresponding to the second candidate reference image.
Regarding claim 35, none of the references of record alone or in combination suggest or fairly teach wherein in response to a reference time period corresponding to a candidate reference image does not overlap with the first time period, the smaller an interval time period between the reference time period and the first time period, the greater the weight corresponding to the candidate reference image is.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD PARK. The examiner’s contact information is as follows:
Telephone: (571)270-1576 | Fax: 571.270.2576 | Edward.Park@uspto.gov
For email communications, please notate MPEP 502.03, which outlines procedures pertaining to communications via the internet and authorization. A sample authorization form is cited within MPEP 502.03, section II.
The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-6 CST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Moyer, can be reached on (571) 272-9523. 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.
/EDWARD PARK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666
Prosecution Insights