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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS of 04/30/24 has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 01/31/24 are accepted.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2 and 16 disclose the following limitation:
wherein the step of forming a disturbed electromagnetic interference image based at least in part on the undisturbed electromagnetic interference image includes forming a disturbed electromagnetic interference image based at least in part on determination of an object factor that is a function of the differences between experimentally electromagnetic fields and electromagnetic fields calculated during the step of forming an undisturbed electromagnetic interference image
The phrase, “that is a function of the differences between experimentally electromagnetic fields …” contains a minor grammatical informality. It will be construed that the phrase should state, “that is a function of the differences between experimental electromagnetic fields …”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 7 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.
The equation in the body of claim 7 appears to be identical to the equation in the body of claim 6. However, claim 6 is directed to, “wherein the step of forming a disturbed electromagnetic interference image includes calculation of …” while claim 7 is directed to, “wherein the step of recognizing electromagnetic interference patterns in the repeatedly disturbed electromagnetic interference images includes the calculation of sums …” It is unclear how the same equation applies to both the condition of claim 6 and the condition of claim 7. Are the conditions the same, such that claim 7 is essentially redundant to claim 6? Or was a wrong equation inadvertently input for the condition of claim 7?
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
With respect to step 1 of the patent subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims are directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Independent claim 1 is directed to an electromagnetic interference pattern recognition tomography (EMIPRT) method, which is a process. Independent claim 15 is directed to an image reconstruction system, which is a machine. All other claims depend on independent claims 1 and 15. As such, claims 1-24 are directed to a statutory category.
With respect to step 2A, prong one, the claims recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. Specifically, the following limitations recite mathematical concepts and/or mental processes.
Claim 1
using the generated electromagnetic field data, repeatedly, in recursive manner (Applying data repeatedly, according to some sort of general recursive workflow, is a concept that can be performed in the human mind. The limitation therefore recites an abstract mental process.)
forming an undisturbed electromagnetic interference image (A general formation of an undisturbed electromagnetic interference image is a concept that can be performed in the human mind. For example, the human mind could memorize applicant’s figure 3. The limitation therefore recites an abstract mental process. Furthermore, paragraphs 0017-0018 of the applicant’s original specification explicitly shows that the formation of the undisturbed and disturbed electromagnetic interference images are defined by specific mathematical equations. This is also demonstrated in the dependent claims.)
forming a disturbed electromagnetic interference image based at least in part on the undisturbed electromagnetic interference image (A general formation of an disturbed electromagnetic interference image is a concept that can be performed in the human mind. For example, the human mind could memorize applicant’s figures 4A-4B. The limitation therefore recites an abstract mental process. Furthermore, paragraphs 0017-0018 of the applicant’s original specification explicitly shows that the formation of the undisturbed and disturbed electromagnetic interference images are defined by specific mathematical equations. This is also demonstrated in the dependent claims.)
recognizing electromagnetic interference patterns in the repeatedly formed disturbed electromagnetic interference images (General pattern recognition in images is a concept that can be performed in the human mind. This limitation therefore recites an abstract mental process. Furthermore, paragraph 0055 of the applicant’s original specification details a pattern recognition strategy that is defined by specific mathematical equation(s).)
forming a superposition image by nullifying or diminishing the recognized electromagnetic interference patterns from the disturbed electromagnetic interference image (This limitation can be performed by mentally prioritizing or de-prioritizing certain parts of an image. The limitation recites an abstract mental process.)
Independent claim 15 represents a system variation of method claim 1. It recites similar limitations that recite abstract ideas.
All other claims depend on independent claims 1 and 15. They also recite the abstract limitations of claims 1 and 15, by virtue of their dependence. In addition, some of the dependent claims also recite their own abstract ideas.
For example, claims 2 and 16 further describe the mathematical operations that go into forming a disturbed electromagnetic interference image. The claims specifically state, “based at least in part on determination of an object factor that is a function of the differences between experimentally electromagnetic fields and electromagnetic fields calculated during the step of forming an undisturbed electromagnetic interference image.” This specifically recites specific mathematical relationships/calculations.
Claims 3-8 recite specific mathematical formulas/equations. They recite abstract mathematical concepts.
Claims 9 and 17 disclose determination of whether a convergence objective has been reached. This is an abstract mental process that can be performed in the human mind.
Claims 10-12 and 18-20 are directed to generating 4D differential (dynamic) fused images. The described way of generating these 4D images (as described in paragraph 0025 of the applicant’s original specification and in the claims) is able to be performed as an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion in the human mind.
Claims 13 and 21 discloses carrying out various steps sequentially. Sequential operation represents a specific mathematical relationship between the various steps. This limitation recites an abstract mathematical concept.
With respect to step 2A, prong two, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The following limitations are considered “additional elements” and explanation will be given as to why these “additional elements” do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 1
An Electromagnetic Interference Pattern Recognition Tomography (EMIPRT) method for use in an image reconstruction system (The general mention of Electromagnetic Interference Pattern Recognition Tomography merely serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The limitation is not indicative of integration into a practical application.)
via an electromagnetic tomography system, generating electromagnetic field data corresponding to an object, the object including human tissue shielded by a bony structure, in an imaging domain, wherein the electromagnetic field data is measured at a plurality of receivers after being produced at a plurality of transmitters and interacting with the object (This limitation is directed to gathering data for mathematical data processing. The general collection of data merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). It is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Furthermore, the disclosure of an electromagnetic tomography system, receivers, transmitters, and an object including human tissue shielded by a bony structure, merely serve to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. It is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Independent claim 15 represents a system variation of method claim 1. It recites similar limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application. It also includes the following unique limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
An image reconstruction system using electromagnetic interference pattern recognition tomography (This limitation generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).)
an electromagnetic tomography system that generates electromagnetic field data corresponding to an object, the object including human tissue shielded by a bony structure, in an imaging domain (This limitation generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).), the electromagnetic tomography system including:
a plurality of electromagnetic transmitters (This limitation generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).)
a plurality of receivers that measure the electromagnetic data after being produced at the plurality of transmitters and interacting with the object (This limitation generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).)
a boundary apparatus (This limitation generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).)
a processing center that, using the generated electromagnetic field data, repeatedly, in recursive manner, carries out steps (This limitation uses mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).) It is not indicative of integration into a practical application.)
All other claims depend on independent claims 1 and 15. They also recite limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application, by virtue of their dependence. In addition, some of the dependent claims also recite their own limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application.
For example, claims 14 and 22 disclose a display unit. The generic display of processed data merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). It is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claims 23-24 disclose a human head/human skull/brain. Such disclosure merely serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). It is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
With respect to step 2B, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claimed invention does not add significantly more because, as discussed above in step 2A, prong two, the claims do nothing more than merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claims are directed to receiving and processing data. This is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Simply appending well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, and specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) (see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of Semenov (‘361) (US Pat 10921361) in view of Semenov (‘493) (US PgPub 20120010493).
With respect to claim 1, Semenov (‘361) discloses:
An Electromagnetic Interference Pattern Recognition Tomography (EMIPRT) method for use in an image reconstruction system (claim 1)
via an electromagnetic tomography system, generating electromagnetic field data corresponding to an object in an imaging domain, wherein the electromagnetic field data is measured at a plurality of receivers after being produced at a plurality of transmitters and interacting with the object (claim 1)
using the generated electromagnetic field data, repeatedly, in recursive manner (claim 1)
forming an undisturbed electromagnetic interference image (claim 1)
forming a disturbed electromagnetic interference image based at least in part on the undisturbed electromagnetic interference image (claim 1)
recognizing electromagnetic interference patterns in the repeatedly formed disturbed electromagnetic interference images (claim 1)
forming a superposition image by nullifying or diminishing the recognized electromagnetic interference patterns from the disturbed electromagnetic interference image (claim 1)
With respect to claim 1, Semenov (‘361) differs from the claimed invention in that is does not explicitly disclose:
the object including human tissue shielded by a bony structure
corresponding to the bony structure
With respect to claim 1, Semenov (‘493) discloses:
the object including human tissue shielded by a bony structure (Paragraphs 0141, 0144, and 0147 disclose bony areas. Paragraph 0152 states, “The initial applicability of the novel electromagnetic imaging concept for brain imaging was assessed using 2D computer model of a head. The disclosure of “head” for brain imaging suggests the bony structure surrounding the brain, such as the skull.)
corresponding to the bony structure (Paragraphs 0141, 0144, 0147, and 0152)
With respect to claim 1, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Semenov (‘493) into the invention of Semenov (‘361). The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of evaluating specific tissues that are surrounded by bony structures, such as the human brain.
With respect to claim 15, Semenov (‘361) discloses:
An image reconstruction system using electromagnetic interference pattern recognition tomography (Claim 1 discloses, “An Electromagnetic Interference Pattern Recognition Tomography (EMIPRT) method … via an electromagnetic tomography system …)
an electromagnetic tomography system that generates electromagnetic field data corresponding to an object in an imaging domain (claim 1), the electromagnetic tomography system including:
a plurality of electromagnetic transmitters (claim 1)
a plurality of receivers that measure the electromagnetic data after being produced at the plurality of transmitters and interacting with the object (claim 1)
using the generated electromagnetic field data, repeatedly, in recursive manner (claim 1), carries out steps of:
forming an undisturbed electromagnetic interference image (claim 1)
forming a disturbed electromagnetic interference image based at least in part on the undisturbed electromagnetic interference image (claim 1)
recognizing electromagnetic interference patterns in the repeatedly formed disturbed electromagnetic interference images (claim 1)
forming a superposition image by nullifying or diminishing the recognized electromagnetic interference patterns from the disturbed electromagnetic interference image (claim 1)
With respect to claim 15, Semenov (‘361) differs from the claimed invention in that is does not explicitly disclose:
the object including human tissue shielded by a bony structure
a boundary apparatus
a processing center
corresponding to the bony structure
With respect to claim 15, Semenov (‘493) discloses:
the object including human tissue shielded by a bony structure (Paragraphs 0141, 0144, and 0147 disclose bony areas. Paragraph 0152 states, “The initial applicability of the novel electromagnetic imaging concept for brain imaging was assessed using 2D computer model of a head. The disclosure of “head” for brain imaging suggests the bony structure surrounding the brain, such as the skull.)
a boundary apparatus (figure 2, reference 12)
a processing center (figure 7, references 14-15 disclose computer that is broadly interpreted as claimed processing center)
corresponding to the bony structure (Paragraphs 0141, 0144, 0147, and 0152)
With respect to claim 15, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Semenov (‘493) into the invention of Semenov (‘361). The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of evaluating specific tissues that are surrounded by bony structures, such as the human brain.
With respect to claims 2 and 16, Semenov (‘361), as modified, discloses:
wherein the step of forming a disturbed electromagnetic interference image based at least in part on the undisturbed electromagnetic interference image includes forming a disturbed electromagnetic interference image based at least in part on determination of an object factor that is a function of the differences between experimental electromagnetic fields and electromagnetic fields calculated during the step of forming an undisturbed electromagnetic interference image (claim 1 of Semenov (‘361))
With respect to claim 3, Semenov (‘361), as modified, discloses:
wherein the object factor is determined as … (see claimed equation) (claim 1 of Semenov (‘361))
With respect to claim 4, Semenov (‘361), as modified, discloses:
wherein the object factor is determined as … (see claimed equation) (claim 8 of Semenov (‘361); The claim has preceding limitations similar to those in claim 1, as described above.)
With respect to claim 5, Semenov (‘361), as modified, discloses:
wherein the object factor is determined as … (see claimed equation) (claim 13 of Semenov (‘361); The claim has preceding limitations similar to those in claim 1, as described above.)
With respect to claim 6, Semenov (‘361), as modified, discloses:
wherein the step of forming a disturbed electromagnetic interference image includes calculation of … (see claimed equation) (claim 18 of Semenov (‘361); The claim has preceding limitations similar to those in claim 1, as described above.)
With respect to claim 7, Semenov (‘361), as modified, discloses:
wherein the step of recognizing electromagnetic interference patterns in the repeatedly formed disturbed electromagnetic interference images includes the calculation of sums … (see claimed equation) (claim 22 of Semenov (‘361); The claim has preceding limitations similar to those in claim 1, as described above.)
With respect to claim 8, Semenov (‘361), as modified, discloses:
wherein the step of recognizing electromagnetic interference patterns in the repeatedly formed electromagnetic interference images includes the calculation … (see claimed equation) (claim 23 of Semenov (‘361); The claim has preceding limitations similar to those in claim 1, as described above.)
With respect to claims 9 and 17, Semenov (‘361), as modified, discloses:
further comprising a step, carried out after each repeated step of forming a superposition image, of determining whether a convergence objective has been reached (claim 2 of Semenov (‘361); see also similar dependent claims associated with other independent claims)
With respect to claims 10 and 18, Semenov (‘361), as modified, discloses:
wherein the method is used as part of a method of generating 4D differential (dynamic) fused images (claim 3 of Semenov (‘361); see also similar dependent claims associated with other independent claims)
With respect to claims 11 and 19, Semenov (‘361), as modified, discloses:
wherein generating 4D differential (dynamic) fused images includes combining at least one successively-formed images indicating relative physiological change with a baseline anatomical image for display as a single unified image (claim 4 of Semenov (‘361); see also similar dependent claims associated with other independent claims)
With respect to claims 12 and 20, Semenov (‘361), as modified, discloses:
wherein the method of generating 4D differential (dynamic) fused images is used as part of a method of monitoring viability and/or functional conditions of biological tissue utilizing 4D dynamic fused electromagnetic pattern recognition tomography (claim 5 of Semenov (‘361); see also similar dependent claims associated with other independent claims)
With respect to claims 13 and 21, Semenov (‘361), as modified, discloses:
wherein the steps of forming an undisturbed electromagnetic interference image, forming a disturbed electromagnetic interference image based at least in part on the undisturbed electromagnetic interference image, recognizing electromagnetic interference patterns in the repeatedly formed disturbed electromagnetic interference images, and forming a superposition image by nullifying or diminishing the recognized electromagnetic interference patterns from the disturbed electromagnetic interference image are carried out sequentially (claim 6 of Semenov (‘361); see also similar dependent claims associated with other independent claims)
With respect to claims 14 and 22, Semenov (‘361), as modified, discloses:
further comprising a step of displaying the superposition image via a display unit (claim 7 of Semenov (‘361); see also similar dependent claims associated with other independent claims)
With respect to claim 23, Semenov (‘361), as modified, discloses:
wherein the object is a human head, wherein the human tissue is a brain in the human head, and wherein the bony structure is a human skull surrounding the human brain (Semenov ‘493 suggests this in paragraph 0152, which states, “The initial applicability of the novel electromagnetic imaging concept for brain imaging was assessed using 2D computer model of a head.” Paragraph 0141 of Semenov ‘493 discloses bony areas that also suggests skull.)
With respect to claim 24, Semenov (‘361), as modified, discloses:
wherein the human skull is represented in the disturbed electromagnetic interference image, and wherein the electromagnetic interference patterns are shapes similar to the representation of the human skull, and located inside the representation of the human skull, in the disturbed electromagnetic interference image (obvious in view of paragraphs 0141, 0144, 0147, and 0151-0153 of Semenov ‘493)
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 and 9-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Semenov (‘493) (US PgPub 20120010493) in view of Cao et al (US PgPub 20150117596).
With respect to claim 1, Semenov (‘493) discloses:
An Electromagnetic Interference Pattern Recognition Tomography (EMIPRT) method for use in an image reconstruction system (abstract)
via an electromagnetic tomography system, generating electromagnetic field data corresponding to an object, the object including human tissue shielded by a bony structure, in an imaging domain, wherein the electromagnetic field data is measured at a plurality of receivers after being produced at a plurality of transmitters and interacting with the object (abstract; figure 1 shows transmitters and receivers; human tissue shielded by bony structure is suggested by disclosure of head (paragraphs 0151-0153) and brain (paragraphs 0101, 0135, and 0152)
With respect to claim 1, Semenov (‘493) differs from the claimed invention in that is does not explicitly disclose:
using the generated electromagnetic field data, repeatedly, in recursive manner:
forming an undisturbed electromagnetic interference image
forming a disturbed electromagnetic interference image based at least in part on the undisturbed electromagnetic interference image
recognizing electromagnetic interference patterns, corresponding to the bony structure, in the repeatedly formed disturbed electromagnetic interference images
forming a superposition image by nullifying or diminishing the recognized electromagnetic interference patterns from the disturbed electromagnetic interference image
With respect to claim 1, Cao et al discloses:
using the generated electromagnetic field data, repeatedly, in recursive manner (figure 6, references 616 and 618):
forming an undisturbed electromagnetic interference image (Cao et al abstract states, “An imaging system includes a computer programmed to reconstruct original CT projection data, estimate noise in image space, forward project the image noise estimate to generate an initial projection noise estimate, modify the initial projection noise estimate using a statistical property of noise in projection space, remove noise in the original CT projection data by subtracting the modified noise estimate therefrom to generate noise-removed projection data, and reconstruct a final image based on the noise-removed projection data.”; The examiner broadly construes the claimed undisturbed electromagnetic interference image to be suggested by the original projection data represented in Cao et al figure 6, reference 604.)
forming a disturbed electromagnetic interference image based at least in part on the undisturbed electromagnetic interference image (Cao et al figure 6, reference 606; Paragraph 0040 states, “An image is reconstructed 606 using a reconstruction process flow such as filtered back-projection (FBP) … FBP is commonly known as an image reconstruction process that includes convolution of the measured projection with a reconstruction kernel, and the back-projection of a filtered projection.” The examiner broadly construes any image directly derived from the original pre-processed data to serve as the claimed undisturbed electromagnetic interference image, while the image formed after processing the original data through the FBP processing would serve as the claimed disturbed electromagnetic interference image.)
recognizing electromagnetic interference patterns, corresponding to the bony structure, in the repeatedly formed disturbed electromagnetic interference images (obvious in view of combination; Semenov (‘493’) discloses bony structure, as discussed above. Cao et al figure 6, reference 608 discloses the estimation of image noise, which is broadly construed to serve as the recognition of electromagnetic interference patterns, as the invention is distinguishing between image signal and noise.)
forming a superposition image by nullifying or diminishing the recognized electromagnetic interference patterns from the disturbed electromagnetic interference image (obvious in view of Cao et al figure 6, reference 614; Subtracting noise is broadly construed to serve as the claimed “nullifying or diminishing”.)
With respect to claim 1, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Cao et al into the invention of Semenov (‘493). The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of creating better images that are less encumbered by noise.
Independent claim 15 represents a system claim variation of method claim 1. It is rejected for similar reasons as those given, with respect to claim 1, above.
With respect to claims 2 and 16, Semenov (‘493), as modified, discloses:
wherein the step of forming a disturbed electromagnetic interference image based at least in part on the undisturbed electromagnetic interference image includes forming a disturbed electromagnetic interference image based at least in part on determination of an object factor that is a function of the differences between experimental electromagnetic fields and electromagnetic fields calculated during the step of forming an undisturbed electromagnetic interference image (The claimed data processing described in paragraph 0040 of Cao et al is broadly construed to serve as the claimed object factor.)
With respect to claims 9 and 17, Semenov (‘493), as modified, discloses:
further comprising a step, carried out after each repeated step of forming a superposition image, of determining whether a convergence objective has been reached (obvious in view of combination; Both Semenov (‘493) and Cao et al disclose the principle of convergence objectives to end a repeated iterative process. Paragraph 0123 of Semenov (‘493) states, “In order to stop iterations the convergence of the process is checked at step 1080.” Figure 6, reference 624 shows a check of whether to continue or end an iterative process, which serves as a convergence objective.)
With respect to claims 10 and 18, Semenov (‘493), as modified, discloses:
wherein the method is used as part of a method of generating 4D differential (dynamic) fused images (The abstract of Semenov (‘493) discloses, “Methods and systems for 4D electromagnetic tomographic differential (dynamic) fused imaging …”)
With respect to claims 11 and 19, Semenov (‘493), as modified, discloses:
wherein generating 4D differential (dynamic) fused images includes combining at least one successively-formed images indicating relative physiological change with a baseline anatomical image for display as a single unified image (Semenov (‘493) paragraphs 0020, 0145, and 0148)
With respect to claims 12 and 20, Semenov (‘493), as modified, discloses:
wherein the method of generating 4D differential (dynamic) fused images is used as part of a method of monitoring viability and/or functional conditions of biological tissue utilizing 4D dynamic fused electromagnetic pattern recognition tomography (paragraphs 0030, 0054, 0135, and 0154)
With respect to claims 13 and 21, Semenov (‘493), as modified, discloses:
wherein the steps of forming an undisturbed electromagnetic interference image, forming a disturbed electromagnetic interference image based at least in part on the undisturbed electromagnetic interference image, recognizing electromagnetic interference patterns in the repeatedly formed disturbed electromagnetic interference images, and forming a superposition image by nullifying or diminishing the recognized electromagnetic interference patterns from the disturbed electromagnetic interference image are carried out sequentially (obvious in view of combination; Cao et al figure 6 shows a workflow of sequential steps, as does Semenov (‘493) figures 10A-B)
With respect to claims 14 and 22, Semenov (‘493), as modified, discloses:
further comprising a step of displaying the superposition image via a display unit (obvious in view of combination; Cao et al figure 2, reference 42 discloses display; Also, the abstract of Semenov (‘493’) states, “The anatomical information and functional information are fused for display.” The principle of display is further taught throughout the disclosure for Semenov (‘493’).)
With respect to claim 23, Semenov (‘493’), as modified, discloses:
wherein the object is a human head, wherein the human tissue is a brain in the human head, and wherein the bony structure is a human skull surrounding the human brain (suggested by disclosure of head and brain in Semenov (‘493’), as discussed above)
With respect to claim 24, Semenov (‘493), as modified, discloses:
wherein the human skull is represented in the disturbed electromagnetic interference image, and wherein the electromagnetic interference patterns are shapes similar to the representation of the human skull, and located inside the representation of the human skull, in the disturbed electromagnetic interference image (obvious in view of combination; Cao et al discloses disturbed image; Semenov (‘493) discloses field of use context for brain and human head.)
Examiner’s Note - Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8 disclose the following subject matter that was not found, taught, suggested, or disclosed in the prior art. Please note that the subject matter cannot be considered allowable subject matter, until the above double patenting, 101, and 112 rejections are addressed.
Claims 3-8 disclose specific mathematical equations (see claimed equations) that were not found, taught, suggested, or disclosed in the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dong et al (CN 101564294A) discloses electrical impedance tomography method fused with structural information. Attached NPL document includes both machine translation and original.
Zakaria et al NPL (Zakaria, Z.; Rahim, R.; Mansor, M.; Yaacob, S.; Ayob, N.; Muji, S.; Rahiman, M.; and Aman, S. – “Advancements in Transmitters and Sensors for Biological Tissue Imaging in Magnetic Induction Tomography”; Sensors 2012, 12, 7126-7156.)
Deng et al NPL (Deng, Y. and Liu, X.) – “Electromagnetic Imaging Methods for Nondestructive Evaluation Applications”; Sensors 2011, 11, 11774-11808.)
Wendel et al NPL (Wendel, K.; Vaisanen, O.; Malmivuo, J.; Gencer, N.; Vanrumste, B.; Durka, P.; Magjarevic, R.; Supek, S.; Pascu, M.; Fontenelle, H.; and Menendez, R. – “EEG/MEG Source Imaging : Methods, Challenges, and Open Issues”; Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience; Volume 2009, Article ID 656092.)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEONARD S LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2148. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM - 7 PM.
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, ARLEEN M VAZQUEZ can be reached at (571)272-2619. 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.
/LEONARD S LIANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857 06/09/26
Prosecution Insights