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 .
Response to Arguments
Previous Prior Art rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Amended independent claim 1 (and similarly amended independent claim 11) recites, “execute the model with the scatter-energy window projection of the first subject and the estimated activity map as inputs, wherein the model generates an attenuation map segmented into a plurality of regions corresponding to different organs of the subject;”. Regarding the bolded sections, the Examiner is unable to locate support in the Specification for the sections. The closest relevant passages, as also recited by the Applicant in Remarks, are Paragraphs 31-32 of the Specification. However, this passage is silent on the estimated activity map being used as an input to a model in the generation of an attenuation map. In the Specification, “activity map” is only mentioned twice, and neither mention appears to disclose or even suggest the above claim amendment.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 and 6-21 are rejected under 35 USC 112(a), but would be allowable if Applicant were able to provide sufficient support to overcome the 35 USC 112(a) rejections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: With respect to claims 1 and 11, as well as the respective dependent claims, in addition to other limitations in the claims, the Prior Art of Record fails to teach, disclose or render obvious the applicant' s invention as claimed, in particular:
Claim 1 (and similarly claim 11) recites: “A system for single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) comprising a computer device comprises at least one processor in communication with at least one memory device, wherein the at least one processor is programmed to: store a model trained to generate an attenuation map of a subject being examined; receive a scatter-energy window projection of a first subject to be examined; reconstruct a photopeak-energy window projection of the first subject to generate an estimated activity map; execute the model with the scatter-energy window projection of the first subject and the estimated activity map as inputs, wherein the model generates an attenuation map segmented into a plurality of regions corresponding to different organs of the subject; and perform attenuation compensation on the photopeak-energy window projection using the generated attenuation map.”
Yu teaches a SPECT compensation method wherein an attenuation map is estimated based on the scatter sinogram, then an activity map is estimated based on the estimated attenuation map and the photopeak sinogram. This reference is the closest to the instant Application, but does not disclose or suggest inputting an estimated activity map (generated based on a reconstruction of a photopeak-energy window projection) in addition to a scatter-energy window projection to generate an attenuation map. Johnson teaches the use of D-SPECT cameras for myocardial perfusion imaging studies to assess coronary artery disease. Shi (US 20220207791 A1) teaches machine learning strategies for estimating attenuation coefficients from SPECT data without CT scans. Shi (Deep learning-based attenuation map generation for myocardial perfusion SPECT), same inventor as above, teaches the use of photopeak window and scatter window SPECT images for performing attenuation correction without CT scans. Chen teaches attenuation correction of cardiac SPECT using deep-learning strategies. However, none of these references disclose the bolded limitations above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON JOSEPH SORRIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at (571) 272-3638. 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.
/AARON JOSEPH SORRIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2672
/SUMATI LEFKOWITZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights